Weltweit Steuer auf CO?

VON F. DIEDERICHS, 16.04.07, 20:33h

Wenn heute der UN-Sicherheitsrat erstmals in seiner Geschichte den Artikel
Klimaschutz und die globale Erwärmung zum Hauptthema macht, stellt mailen
sich vor allem eine Frage: Wie geht es angesichts des Krisen-Szenarios, das
Wissenschaftler in den ersten beiden Teilen des Welt-Klimaberichts
zeichneten, weiter? Druckfassung

Am 4. Mai werden Forscher in Bangkok im mit Spannung erwarteten dritten Bericht

Lösungswege aufzeigen, um die Klimaveränderungen abzumildern oder zu stoppen. Die
bisher unveröffentlichten Vorschläge umfassen - wie die Rundschau jetzt von an der UN-
Studie beteiligten Forschern erfuhr - teilweise spektakuläre Ideen, mit denen nach Ansicht von
Wissenschaftlern bei „konsequentem und schnellem Handeln“ die prognostizierte Erwärmung
der Erdoberfläche noch gestoppt werden kann.

Einer der wichtigsten Vorschläge: Anreize und finanzielle Vorteile für umweltfreundlichere
Energien schaffen - vor allem mit Blick auf Kohlekraftwerke in Ländern wie China und
Indien, die nicht die Vereinbarungen von Kyoto unterzeichnet haben. Die Industrienationen
müssten im globalen Interesse Wege finden, langfristig ein Umdenken in
Entwicklungsländern finanziell attraktiv zu machen. Überdacht werden sollten deshalb die
Regeln des bisherigen Emissionshandels, wobei auch angeregt wird, über eine weltweite
„Kohlendioxid“-Steuer nachzudenken. Gleichzeitig schlagen Forscher vor, das „Einfangen“
und Speichern von Kohlendioxid-Emissionen zu einem Hauptbestandteil im Kampf gegen
Klimaveränderungen zu machen. Pilotprojekte für diese Strategien gibt es unter anderem in
Deutschland.

Ebenfalls fordern am dritten Klima-Bericht beteiligte Forscher deutliche Energieeinsparung

beim Heizen und Kühlen in Gebäuden. Gleichzeitig wird für einen Innovationsschub plädiert,
bei dem vor allem Wind- und Solarenergien, aber auch die umstrittene Atomenergie als
„saubere“ Technologien neuen Stellenwert gewinnen könnten.
Climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Atmospheric sciences [cat.]
Meteorology [cat.]
weather [cat.]
tropical cyclones [cat.]
Climatology [cat.]
climate [cat.]
climate change [cat.]
Portal Atmospheric Sciences
Portal Weather

Variations in CO2, temperature and dust from the Vostok ice core over the last 450,000 years
For current global climate change, see Global warming.
For previous global climate change, see Global cooling.

Climate change is the variation in the Earth's global climate or in regional climates over time.
It involves changes in the variability or average state of the atmosphere over durations
ranging from decades to millions of years. These changes can be caused by dynamic process
on Earth, external forces including variations in sunlight intensity, and more recently by
human activities.

In recent usage, especially in the context of environmental policy, the term "climate change"
often refers to changes in modern climate (see global warming). For information on
temperature measurements over various periods, and the data sources available, see
temperature record. For attribution of climate change over the past century, see attribution of
recent climate change.
Contents
[hide]

• 1 Climate change factors

o 1.1 Variations within the Earth's climate
 1.1.1 Glaciation
 1.1.2 Ocean variability
 1.1.3 The memory of climate
o 1.2 Non-climate factors driving climate change
 1.2.1 Greenhouse gases
 1.2.2 Plate tectonics
 1.2.3 Solar variation
 1.2.4 Orbital variations
 1.2.5 Volcanism
o 1.3 Human influences on climate change
 1.3.1 Fossil fuels
 1.3.2 Aerosols
 1.3.3 Cement manufacture
 1.3.4 Land use
 1.3.5 Livestock
• 2 Interplay of factors
• 3 Monitoring the current status of climate
• 4 Evidence for climatic change
o 4.1 Pollen analysis
o 4.2 Beetles
o 4.3 Glacial geology
o 4.4 Historical records
• 5 Examples of climate change
• 6 Climate change and biodiversity
• 7 See also
• 8 References

• 9 Notes

[edit] Climate change factors

This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged
and removed. (February 2008)

Climate changes reflect variations within the Earth's atmosphere, processes in other parts of
the Earth such as oceans and ice caps, and the effects of human activity. The external factors
that can shape climate are often called climate forcings and include such processes as
variations in solar radiation, the Earth's orbit, and greenhouse gas concentrations.

[edit] Variations within the Earth's climate

Weather is the day-to-day state of the atmosphere, and is a chaotic non-linear dynamical
system. On the other hand, climate — the average state of weather — is fairly stable and
predictable. Climate includes the average temperature, amount of precipitation, days of
sunlight, and other variables that might be measured at any given site. However, there are also
changes within the Earth's environment that can affect the climate.

[edit] Glaciation

Percentage of advancing glaciers in the Alps in the last 80 years

Glaciers are recognized as being among the most sensitive indicators of climate change,
advancing substantially during climate cooling (e.g., the Little Ice Age) and retreating during
climate warming on moderate time scales. Glaciers grow and collapse, both contributing to
natural variability and greatly amplifying externally forced changes. For the last century,
however, glaciers have been unable to regenerate enough ice during the winters to make up
for the ice lost during the summer months (see glacier retreat).

The most significant climate processes of the last several million years are the glacial and
interglacial cycles of the present ice age. Though shaped by orbital variations, the internal
responses involving continental ice sheets and 130 m sea-level change certainly played a key
role in deciding what climate response would be observed in most regions. Other changes,
including Heinrich events, Dansgaard–Oeschger events and the Younger Dryas show the
potential for glacial variations to influence climate even in the absence of specific orbital
changes.

[edit] Ocean variability

A schematic of modern thermohaline circulation

On the scale of decades, climate changes can also result from interaction of the atmosphere
and oceans. Many climate fluctuations — including not only the El Niño Southern oscillation
(the best known) but also the Pacific decadal oscillation, the North Atlantic oscillation, and
the Arctic oscillation — owe their existence at least in part to different ways that heat can be
stored in the oceans and move between different reservoirs. On longer time scales ocean
processes such as thermohaline circulation play a key role in redistributing heat, and can
dramatically affect climate.

[edit] The memory of climate

More generally, most forms of internal variability in the climate system can be recognized as
a form of hysteresis, meaning that the current state of climate reflects not only the inputs, but
also the history of how it got there. For example, a decade of dry conditions may cause lakes
to shrink, plains to dry up and deserts to expand. In turn, these conditions may lead to less
rainfall in the following years. In short, climate change can be a self-perpetuating process
because different aspects of the environment respond at different rates and in different ways to
the fluctuations that inevitably occur.

[edit] Non-climate factors driving climate change

[edit] Greenhouse gases

Main article: Greenhouse gas

Carbon dioxide variations during the last 500 million years

Current studies indicate that radiative forcing by greenhouse gases is the primary cause of
global warming. Greenhouse gases are also important in understanding Earth's climate
history. According to these studies, the greenhouse effect, which is the warming produced as
greenhouse gases trap heat, plays a key role in regulating Earth's temperature.

Over the last 600 million years, carbon dioxide concentrations have varied from perhaps
>5000 ppm to less than 200 ppm, due primarily to the effect of geological processes and
biological innovations. It has been argued by Veizer et al., 1999, that variations in greenhouse
gas concentrations over tens of millions of years have not been well correlated to climate
change, with plate tectonics perhaps playing a more dominant role. More recently Royer et
al.[1] have used the CO2-climate correlation to derive a value for the climate sensitivity. There
are several examples of rapid changes in the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the Earth's
atmosphere that do appear to correlate to strong warming, including the Paleocene–Eocene
thermal maximum, the Permian–Triassic extinction event, and the end of the Varangian
snowball earth event.

During the modern era, the naturally rising carbon dioxide levels are implicated as the
primary cause of global warming since 1950. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), 2007, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 2005 was 379 ppm³
compared to the pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm³. Thermodynamics and Le Chatelier's
principle explain the characteristics of the dynamic equilibrium of a gas in solution such as
the vast amount of CO2 held in solution in the world's oceans moving into and returning from
the atmosphere. These principles can be observed as bubbles which rise in a pot of water
heated on a stove, or in a glass of cold beer allowed to sit at room temperature; gases
dissolved in liquids are released under certain circumstances.

[edit] Plate tectonics

On the longest time scales, plate tectonics will reposition continents, shape oceans, build and
tear down mountains and generally serve to define the stage upon which climate exists. More
recently, plate motions have been implicated in the intensification of the present ice age when,
approximately 3 million years ago, the North and South American plates collided to form the
Isthmus of Panama and shut off direct mixing between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

[edit] Solar variation

Variations in solar activity during the last several centuries based on observations of sunspots
and beryllium isotopes.

The sun is the ultimate source of essentially all heat in the climate system. The energy output
of the sun, which is converted to heat at the Earth's surface, is an integral part of shaping the
Earth's climate. On the longest time scales, the sun itself is getting brighter with higher energy
output; as it continues its main sequence, this slow change or evolution affects the Earth's
atmosphere. It is thought that, early in Earth's history, the sun was too cold to support liquid
water at the Earth's surface, leading to what is known as the Faint young sun paradox.[citation
needed]
.

On more modern time scales, there are also a variety of forms of solar variation, including the
11-year solar cycle and longer-term modulations. However, the 11-year sunspot cycle does
not manifest itself clearly in the climatological data. Solar intensity variations are considered
to have been influential in triggering the Little Ice Age, and for some of the warming observed
from 1900 to 1950. The cyclical nature of the sun's energy output is not yet fully understood;
it differs from the very slow change that is happening within the sun as it ages and
evolves.[citation needed].

To quote Spencer R. Weart (The discovery of Global Warming 2003) "The study of [sun spot]
cycles was generally popular through the first half of the century. Governments had collected
a lot of weather data to play with and inevitably people found correlations between sun spot
cycles and select weather patterns. If rainfall in England didn't fit the cycle, maybe storminess
in New England would. Respected scientists and enthusiastic amateurs insisted they had
found patterns reliable enough to make predictions. Sooner or later though every prediction
failed. An example was a highly credible forecast of a dry spell in Africa during the sunspot
minimum of the early 1930s. When the period turned out to be wet, a meteorologist later
recalled "the subject of sunspots and weather relationships fell into dispute, especially among
British meteorologists who witnessed the discomfiture of some of their most respected
superiors" Even in the 60s he said, "For a young researcher to entertain any statement of sun-
weather relationships was to brand oneself a crank"

[edit] Orbital variations

In their effect on climate, orbital variations are in some sense an extension of solar variability,
because slight variations in the Earth's orbit lead to changes in the distribution and abundance
of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. Such orbital variations, known as Milankovitch
cycles, are a highly predictable consequence of basic physics due to the mutual interactions of
the Earth, its moon, and the other planets. These variations are considered the driving factors
underlying the glacial and interglacial cycles of the present ice age. Subtler variations are also
present, such as the repeated advance and retreat of the Sahara desert in response to orbital
precession.

[edit] Volcanism

A single eruption of the kind that occurs several times per century can affect climate, causing
cooling for a period of a few years. For example, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991
affected climate substantially. Huge eruptions, known as large igneous provinces, occur only a
few times every hundred million years, but can reshape climate for millions of years and
cause mass extinctions. Initially, scientists thought that the dust emitted into the atmosphere
from large volcanic eruptions was responsible for the cooling by partially blocking the
transmission of solar radiation to the Earth's surface. However, measurements indicate that
most of the dust thrown in the atmosphere returns to the Earth's surface within six months.

Volcanoes are also part of the extended carbon cycle. Over very long (geological) time
periods, they release carbon dioxide from the earth's interior, counteracting the uptake by
sedimentary rocks and other geological carbon dioxide sinks. However, this contribution is
insignificant compared to the current anthropogenic emissions. The US Geological Survey
estimates that human activities generate more than 130 times the amount of carbon dioxide
emitted by volcanoes.[2]

Attribution of recent climate change

[edit] Human influences on climate change

Anthropogenic factors are human activities that change the environment and influence
climate. In some cases the chain of causality is direct and unambiguous (e.g., by the effects of
irrigation on temperature and humidity), while in others it is less clear. Various hypotheses for
human-induced climate change have been debated for many years. In the late 1800s, the "rain
follows the plow" idea had many adherents in the western United States.

The biggest factor of present concern is the increase in CO2 levels due to emissions from
fossil fuel combustion, followed by aerosols (particulate matter in the atmosphere), which
exert a cooling effect, and cement manufacture. Other factors, including land use, ozone
depletion, animal agriculture[3] and deforestation, also affect climate.

[edit] Fossil fuels

Carbon dioxide variations over the last 400,000 years, showing a rise since the industrial
revolution.

Beginning with the industrial revolution in the 1850s and accelerating ever since, the human
consumption of fossil fuels has elevated CO2 levels from a concentration of ~280 ppm to
more than 380 ppm today. These increases are projected to reach more than 560 ppm before
the end of the 21st century. It is known that carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now
than at any time in the last 750,000 years.[4] Along with rising methane levels, these changes
are anticipated to cause an increase of 1.4–5.6 °C between 1990 and 2100 (see global
warming).

[edit] Aerosols

Anthropogenic aerosols, particularly sulphate aerosols from fossil fuel combustion, exert a
cooling influence[5]. This, together with natural variability, is believed to account for the
relative "plateau" in the graph of 20th-century temperatures in the middle of the century.

[edit] Cement manufacture

Cement manufacturing is the third largest cause of man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
Carbon dioxide is produced when calcium carbonate (CaCO3) is heated to produce the cement
ingredient calcium oxide (CaO, also called quicklime). While fossil fuel combustion and
deforestation each produce significantly more carbon dioxide (CO2), cement-making is
responsible for approximately 2.5% of total worldwide emissions from industrial sources
(energy plus manufacturing sectors).[6]
[edit] Land use

Prior to widespread fossil fuel use, humanity's largest effect on local climate is likely to have
resulted from land use. Irrigation, deforestation, and agriculture fundamentally change the
environment. For example, they change the amount of water going into and out of a given
location. They also may change the local albedo by influencing the ground cover and altering
the amount of sunlight that is absorbed. For example, there is evidence to suggest that the
climate of Greece and other Mediterranean countries was permanently changed by widespread
deforestation between 700 BC and 1 AD (the wood being used for shipbuilding, construction
and fuel), with the result that the modern climate in the region is significantly hotter and drier,
and the species of trees that were used for shipbuilding in the ancient world can no longer be
found in the area.

A controversial hypothesis by William Ruddiman called the early anthropocene hypothesis[7]

suggests that the rise of agriculture and the accompanying deforestation led to the increases in
carbon dioxide and methane during the period 5000–8000 years ago. These increases, which
reversed previous declines, may have been responsible for delaying the onset of the next
glacial period, according to Ruddimann's overdue-glaciation hypothesis.

In modern times, a 2007 Jet Propulsion Laboratory study [8] found that the average
temperature of California has risen about 2 degrees over the past 50 years, with a much higher
increase in urban areas. The change was attributed mostly to extensive human development of
the landscape.

[edit] Livestock

According to a 2006 United Nations report, Livestock's Long Shadow, livestock is

responsible for 18% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalents.
This however includes land usage change, meaning deforestation in order to create grazing
land. In the Amazon Rainforest, 70% of deforestation is to make way for grazing land, so this
is the major factor in the 2006 UN FAO report, which was the first agricultural report to
include land usage change into the radiative forcing of livestock. In addition to CO2
emissions, livestock produces 65% of human-induced nitrous oxide (which has 296 times the
global warming potential of CO2) and 37% of human-induced methane (which has 23 times
the global warming potential of CO2).[3]

[edit] Interplay of factors

If a certain forcing (for example, solar variation) acts to change the climate, then there may be
mechanisms that act to amplify or reduce the effects. These are called positive and negative
feedbacks. As far as is known, the climate system is generally stable with respect to these
feedbacks: positive feedbacks do not "run away". Part of the reason for this is the existence of
a powerful negative feedback between temperature and emitted radiation: radiation increases
as the fourth power of absolute temperature.

However, a number of important positive feedbacks do exist. The glacial and interglacial
cycles of the present ice age provide an important example. It is believed that orbital
variations provide the timing for the growth and retreat of ice sheets. However, the ice sheets
themselves reflect sunlight back into space and hence promote cooling and their own growth,
known as the ice-albedo feedback. Further, falling sea levels and expanding ice decrease plant
growth and indirectly lead to declines in carbon dioxide and methane. This leads to further
cooling. Conversely, rising temperatures caused, for example, by anthropogenic emissions of
greenhouse gases could lead to decreased snow and ice cover, revealing darker ground
underneath, and consequently result in more absorption of sunlight. [9]

Water vapor, methane, and carbon dioxide can also act as significant positive feedbacks, their
levels rising in response to a warming trend, thereby accelerating that trend. Water vapor acts
strictly as a feedback (excepting small amounts in the stratosphere), unlike the other major
greenhouse gases, which can also act as forcings.

More complex feedbacks involve the possibility of changing circulation patterns in the ocean
or atmosphere. For example, a significant concern in the modern case is that melting glacial
ice from Greenland will interfere with sinking waters in the North Atlantic and inhibit
thermohaline circulation. This could affect the Gulf Stream and the distribution of heat to
Europe and the east coast of the United States.

Other potential feedbacks are not well understood and may either inhibit or promote warming.
For example, it is unclear whether rising temperatures promote or inhibit vegetative growth,
which could in turn draw down either more or less carbon dioxide. Similarly, increasing
temperatures may lead to either more or less cloud cover.[10] Since on balance cloud cover has
a strong cooling effect, any change to the abundance of clouds also affects climate.[11]

[edit] Monitoring the current status of climate

Scientists use "Indicator time series" that represent the many aspects of climate and ecosystem
status. The time history provides a historical context. Current status of the climate is also
monitored with climate indices.[12][13][14][15]

[edit] Evidence for climatic change

This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged
and removed. (June 2007)

Evidence for climatic change is taken from a variety of sources that can be used to reconstruct
past climates. Most of the evidence is indirect—climatic changes are inferred from changes in
indicators that reflect climate, such as vegetation, dendrochronology, ice cores[16], sea level
change, and glacial retreat.

[edit] Pollen analysis

Palynology is the science that studies contemporary and fossil palynomorphs, including
pollen. Palynology is used to infer the geographical distribution of plant species, which vary
under different climate conditions. Different groups of plants have pollen with distinctive
shapes and surface textures, and since the outer surface of pollen is composed of a very
resilient material, they resist decay. Changes in the type of pollen found in different
sedimentation levels in lakes, bogs or river deltas indicate changes in plant communities;
which are dependent on climate conditions[17][18].

[edit] Beetles

Remains of beetles are common in freshwater and land sediments. Different species of beetles
tend to be found under different climatic conditions. Knowledge of the present climatic range
of the different species, and of the age of the sediments in which remains are found, allows
past climatic conditions to be inferred.[19]

[edit] Glacial geology

Advancing glaciers leave behind moraines and other features that often have datable material
in them, recording the time when a glacier advanced and deposited a feature. Similarly, by
tephrochronological techniques, the lack of glacier cover can be identified by the presence of
datable soil or volcanic tephra horizons. Glaciers are considered one of the most sensitive
climate indicators by the IPCC, and their recent observed variations provide a global signal of
climate change. See Retreat of glaciers since 1850.

[edit] Historical records

Historical records include cave paintings, depth of grave digging in Greenland, diaries,
documentary evidence of events (such as 'frost fairs' on the Thames) and evidence of areas of
vine cultivation. Daily weather reports have been kept since 1873, and the Royal Society has
encouraged the collection of data since the seventeenth century.

[edit] Examples of climate change

Climate change has continued throughout the entire history of Earth. The field of
paleoclimatology has provided information of climate change in the ancient past,
supplementing modern observations of climate.

1. Climate of the deep past

o Faint young sun paradox
o Snowball earth
o Oxygen Catastrophe
2. Climate of the last 500 million years
o Phanerozoic overview
o Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum
o Cretaceous Thermal Maximum
o Permo–Carboniferous Glaciation
o Ice ages
3. Climate of recent glaciations
o Dansgaard–Oeschger event
o Younger Dryas
o Ice age temperatures
4. Recent climate
o Holocene Climatic Optimum
o Medieval Warm Period
o Little Ice Age
o Year Without a Summer
o Temperature record of the past 1000 years
o Global warming
o Hardiness Zone Migration
[edit] Climate change and biodiversity

The life cycles of many wild plants and animals are closely linked to the passing of the
seasons; climatic changes can lead to interdependent pairs of species (e.g. a wild flower and
its pollinating insect) losing synchronization, if, for example, one has a cycle dependent on
day length and the other on temperature or precipitation. In principle, at least, this could lead
to extinctions or changes in the distribution and abundance of species. One phenomenon is the
movement of species northwards in Europe. A recent study by Butterfly Conservation in the
UK[20], has shown that relatively common species with a southerly distribution have moved
north, whilst scarce upland species have become rarer and lost territory towards the south.
This picture has been mirrored across several invertebrate groups. Drier summers could lead
to more periods of drought[21], potentially affecting many species of animal and plant. For
example, in the UK during the drought year of 2006 significant numbers of trees died or
showed dieback on light sandy soils. In Australia, since the early 90s, tens of thousands of
flying foxes (Pteropus) have died as a direct result of extreme heat[22]. Wetter, milder winters
might affect temperate mammals or insects by preventing them hibernating or entering torpor
during periods when food is scarce. One predicted change is the ascendancy of 'weedy' or
opportunistic species at the expense of scarcer species with narrower or more specialized
ecological requirements. One example could be the expanses of bluebell seen in many
woodlands in the UK. These have an early growing and flowering season before competing
weeds can develop and the tree canopy closes. Milder winters can allow weeds to overwinter
as adult plants or germinate sooner, whilst trees leaf earlier, reducing the length of the window
for bluebells to complete their life cycle. Organisations such as Wildlife Trust, World Wide
Fund for Nature, Birdlife International and the Audubon Society are actively monitoring and
research the effects of climate change on biodiversity and advance policies in areas such as
landscape scale conservation to promote adaptation to climate change[23].
Senate Report: Over 400 Scientists Dispute Manmade Global
Warming
By Noel Sheppard
Created 2007-12-20 13:26

So, the debate is over, right? The science is settled?

Well, according to a report [1] just published at the

United States Senate Committee on Environment &
Public works website, over 400 prominent scientists
from all over the world have "voiced significant
objections to major aspects of the so-called ‘consensus' on man-made global warming."

As it appears a metaphysical certitude green media will totally boycott these revelations,
NewsBusters is presenting some of the findings:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant
objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These
scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN
IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's office of the
GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of
whom spoke out in 2007.

Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number
of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded
the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking."
Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global
warming fears "bite the dust." (LINK [2]) In addition, many scientists who are also
progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green
movement. (LINK [3])

This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and
academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks
to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public
statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new "consensus busters" report is
poised to redefine the debate.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues
shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric
scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography
at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains
how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

Though lengthy, readers are strongly encouraged to review this entire document [4] to learn
the truth about what real scientists - those not receiving Oscars, Emmys, and Nobel Peace
Prizes - think about this controversial issue.
Source URL:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/12/20/senate-report-over-400-scientists-
dispute-manmade-global-warming
June 22, 2007
The global warming scam
You know how we’re told sixty times per minute that man-made global warming is no longer just a
theory but it’s now demonstrable fact, and that anyone who contradicts this is clinically insane
because there’s a consensus of all scientists that it’s happening and only about 2.5 scientists on the
entire planet disagree and they’re in the pay of Big Oil anyway so we can forget about them; and
so the debate is TOTALLY OVER, says the BBC, which has been told that it is authoritatively by Very
Important Scientists, so that the ‘impartial’ and ‘objective’ BBC says that it no longer needs to give
us a balanced argument about climate change because there just isn’t any reputable scientific
opposition to the proven facts about seas rising and ice melting and hurricanes happening, all
because of the human race and its foul and filthy habits of combustibles, cars and capitalism?

Well, read this remarkable article in Canada’s National Post by R. Timothy Patterson, professor and
director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton
University. This is what Prof Patterson says:

In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most
recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and
with it, our star’s protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space
are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth’s atmosphere. These cosmic rays
enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun’s energy
output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the
stronger solar wind generated during these “high sun” periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from
entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more.

The opposite occurs when the sun is less bright. More cosmic rays are able to get through to
Earth’s atmosphere, more clouds form, and the planet cools more than would otherwise be the
case due to direct solar effects alone. This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th
century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere, as indicated
by the number of sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age.
These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate
change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet’s climate on long,
medium and even short time scales.

In some fields the science is indeed ‘settled.’ For example, plate tectonics, once highly
controversial, is now so well-established that we rarely see papers on the subject at all. But the
science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published
every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans
von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not
believe that ‘the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a
reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases.’ About half of those polled stated that
the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at
all.

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle
of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for
adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did
the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is
the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada.

When you’ve digested that, allow your gaze to settle mid-text on the list of previous Post articles in
its series about the ‘deniers’, the scientists who are outside this fabled ‘consensus’ on global
warming. Read those articles and you will discover, as did to his astonishment the journalist who
wrote them and who had previously accepted the ‘consensus’ as true and settled fact, that more
and more of the most distinguished names in climate science around the world are saying that the
theory is total junk — and who, moreover, have given devastating evidence of the way the global
warmers have falsified the evidence to create an entirely spurious, anti-scientific and deeply
dishonest panic.
There’s this article, for example, about Duncan Wingham, Professor of Climate Physics at
University College London and Director of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling.

Last summer, Dr. Wingham and three colleagues published an article in the journal of the Royal
Society that casts further doubt on the notion that global warming is adversely affecting Antarctica.
By studying satellite data from 1992 to 2003 that surveyed 85% of the East Antarctic ice sheet and
51% of the West Antarctic ice sheet (72% of the ice sheet covering the entire land mass), they
discovered that the Antarctic ice sheet is growing at the rate of 5 millimetres per year (plus or
minus 1 mm per year). That makes Antarctica a sink, not a source, of ocean water. According to
their best estimates, Antarctica will ‘lower [authors’ italics] global sea levels by 0.08 mm’ per year.

Then there’s this article on Christopher Landsea of the Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological
Laboratory. Chair of the American Meteorological Society’s committee on tropical meteorology and
tropical cyclones and a recipient of the American Meteorological Society’s Banner I. Miller Award for
the ‘best contribution to the science of hurricane and tropical weather forecasting’, Landsea was a
lead author on the subject for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — until he
discovered that that the IPCC was falsley stating that global warming was causing hurricanes to
happen. He wrote:

Where is the science, the refereed publications, that substantiate these pronouncements? What
studies are being alluded to that have shown a connection between observed warming trends on
the earth and long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity? As far as I know, there are none.

But since the IPCC

seems to have already come to the conclusion that global warming has altered hurricane activity
and has publicly stated so. This does not reflect the consensus within the hurricane research
community

Landsea resigned.

Then there is this article on Professor Paul Reiter, head of the Insects and Infectious Disease Unit
at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, an officer of the Harvard School of Public Health, a member of the
World Health Organization’s Expert Advisory Committee on Vector Biology and Control, and lead
author of the Health Section of the U.S. National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of
Climate Variability and Change. This was his experience with the IPCC’s handling of his special area
of expertise:

In one of the IPCC’s most egregious errors, in its Second Assessment Report chapter on human
population health, it created the scare — repeated by scientists with a popular following such as
David Suzuki — that global warming could lead to 80 million additional cases of malaria per year
worldwide. The IPCC scientists’ ‘glaring ignorance’ dumbfounded Prof. Reiter and his colleagues. For
example, the IPCC claimed that malarial mosquitoes cannot ordinarily survive temperatures below
16C to 18C, not realizing that many tropical species do and that many temperate species survive
temperatures of –25C. Likewise, IPCC scientists didn’t know at what altitudes mosquitoes can be
found.

As Prof. Reiter testified to a U.K. parliamentary committee in 2005, ‘The paucity of information was
hardly surprising: Not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject!
Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire career as environmental
activists. One of these activists has published “professional” articles as an “expert” on 32 different
subjects, ranging from mercury poisoning to land mines, globalization to allergies and West Nile
virus to AIDS. Among the contributing authors there was one professional entomologist, and a
person who had written an obscure article on dengue and El Nino, but whose principal interest was
the effectiveness of motorcycle crash helmets (plus one paper on the health effects of cellphones).’

Then there’s Dr Claude Allegre. In 1967 Dr Allegre became director of the geochemistry and
cosmochemistry program at the French National Scientific Research Centre; in 1971, he became
director of the University of Paris’s Department of Earth Sciences; in 1976, he became director of
the Paris Institut de Physique du Globe. He is an author of more than 100 scientific articles, many
of them seminal studies on the evolution of the Earth using isotopic evidence, and 11 books. He is
a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the French Academy of Science. Dr.
Allegre was among the 1500 prominent scientists who signed ‘World Scientists’ Warning to
Humanity,’ a highly publicized letter stressing that global warming’s ‘potential risks are very great’
and demanding a new caring ethic that recognizes the globe’s fragility in order to stave off ‘spirals
of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental
collapse.’ He was therefore part of the fabled Consensus. But now look at what Dr Allegre is saying,
as a result of looking at the evolving scientific evidence:

His break with what he now sees as environmental cant on climate change came in September, in
an article entitled ‘The Snows of Kilimanjaro’ in L’ Express, the French weekly. His article cited
evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro’s retreating snow caps, among other
global-warming concerns, come from natural causes. ‘The cause of this climate change is
unknown,’ he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the ‘science is
settled.’… Calling the arguments of those who see catastrophe in climate change ‘simplistic and
obscuring the true dangers’, Dr. Allegre especially despairs at ‘the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose
proclamations consist in denouncing man’s role on the climate without doing anything about it
except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters.’

If I were part of the man-made global warming ‘consensus’, right now I’d be fingering my
professional collar.
CLIMATE CHANGE: MENACE OR
MYTH?
Fred Pearce

12 February 2005

NewScientist.com

ON 16 FEBRUARY, the Kyoto protocol comes into force. Whether you see this as a triumph
of international cooperation or a case of too little, too late, there is no doubt that it was only
made possible by decades of dedicated work by climate scientists. Yet as these same
researchers celebrate their most notable achievement, their work is being denigrated as never
before.

The hostile criticism is coming from sceptics who question the reality of climate change.
Critics have always been around, but in recent months their voices have become increasingly
prominent and influential. One British newspaper called climate change a "global fraud"
based on "left-wing, anti-American, anti-west ideology". A London-based think tank
described the UK's chief scientific adviser, David King, as "an embarrassment" for believing
that climate change is a bigger threat than terrorism. And the bestselling author Michael
Crichton, in his much publicised new novel State of Fear, portrays global warming as an evil
plot perpetrated by environmental extremists.

If the sceptics are to be believed, the evidence for global warming is full of holes and the field
is riven with argument and uncertainty. The apparent scientific consensus over global
warming only exists, they say, because it is enforced by a scientific establishment riding the
gravy train, aided and abetted by governments keen to play the politics of fear. It's easy to
dismiss such claims as politically motivated and with no basis in fact - especially as the
majority of sceptics are economists, business people or politicians, not scientists (see "Meet
the sceptics"). But there are nagging doubts. Could the sceptics be onto something? Are we,
after all, being taken for a ride?

Meet the Sceptics

Most of the prominent organisations making the case against

mainstream climate science have an avowed agenda of promoting
free markets and minimal government. They often accept funding
from the fossil-fuel industry. Few employ climate scientists.

1 Competitive Enterprise Institute (Washington DC)

A free-market lobby organisation that employs six experts on

climate change. Two are lawyers, one an economist, one a political
scientist, one a graduate in business studies and one a
mathematician. They include economist Myron Ebell, most famous
in the UK for a tirade on BBC radio in November 2004 in which he
accused the UK Government's chief scientist David King of
"knowing nothing about climate science". The institute receives
funding from ExxonMobil, the world's largest oil company and an
outspoken corporate opponent of mainstream climate science.

2 American Enterprise Institute (Washington DC)

Another free market think tank. The five experts it sent to the most
recent negotiations on the Kyoto protocol, held in Buenos Aires,
Argentina, in December, included just one natural scientist - a
chemist. Receives money from ExxonMobil.

3 George C. Marshall Institute (Washington DC)

A think tank that has been promoting scepticism on climate change

since 1989. It is a leading proponent of the argument that climate
change is highly uncertain. Receives money from ExxonMobil.

4 International Policy Network (London)

Free-market think tank which in November 2004 said global

warming was a "myth", and described David King as "an
embarassment". Receives money from ExxonMobil.

5 The Scientists

There are a few authoritative climate scientists in the sceptic camp.

The most notable are Patrick Michaels from the University of
Virginia, who is also the chief environmental commentator at the
Cato Institute in Washington DC, and meteorologist Richard
Lindzen from MIT. Most others are either retired, outside
mainstream academia or tied to the fossil fuel industry. In the UK,
three of the most prominent are Philip Stott, a retired
biogeographer, former TV botanist David Bellamy, and Martin
Keeley, a palaeogeologist. Keeley argues on a BBC website that
"global warming is a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested
interests". He is an oil exploration consultant.

This is perhaps the most crucial scientific question of the 21st century. The winning side in
the climate debate will shape economic, political and technological developments for years,
even centuries, to come. With so much at stake, it is crucial that the right side wins. But which
side is right? What is the evidence that human activity is warming the world, and how reliable
is it?

First, the basic physics. It is beyond doubt that certain gases in the atmosphere, most
importantly water vapour and carbon dioxide, trap infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's
surface and so have a greenhouse effect. This in itself is no bad thing. Indeed, without them
the planet would freeze. There is also no doubt that human activity is pumping CO2 into the
atmosphere, and that this has caused a sustained year-on-year rise in CO2 concentrations. For
almost 60 years, measurements at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii have charted this
rise, and it is largely uncontested that today's concentrations are about 35 per cent above pre-
industrial levels (see Graph).

The effect this has on the planet is also measurable. In 2000, researchers based at Imperial
College London examined satellite data covering almost three decades to plot changes in the
amount of infrared radiation escaping from the atmosphere into space - an indirect measure of
how much heat is being trapped. In the part of the infrared spectrum trapped by CO2 -
wavelengths between 13 and 19 micrometres - they found that between 1970 and 1997 less
and less radiation was escaping. They concluded that the increasing quantity of atmospheric
CO2 was trapping energy that used to escape, and storing it in the atmosphere as heat. The
results for the other greenhouse gases were similar.

These uncontested facts are enough to establish that "anthropogenic" greenhouse gas
emissions are tending to make the atmosphere warmer. What's more, there is little doubt that
the climate is changing right now. Temperature records from around the world going back 150
years suggest that 19 of the 20 warmest years - measured in terms of average global
temperature, which takes account of all available thermometer data - have occurred since
1980, and that four of these occurred in the past seven years (see Graph).
The only serious question mark over this record is the possibility that measurements have
been biased by the growth of cities near the sites where temperatures are measured, as cities
retain more heat than rural areas. But some new research suggests there is no such bias. David
Parker of the UK's Met Office divided the historical temperature data into two sets: one taken
in calm weather and the other in windy weather. He reasoned that any effect due to nearby
cities would be more pronounced in calm conditions, when the wind could not disperse the
heat. There was no difference.

It is at this point, however, that uncertainty starts to creep in. Take the grand claim made by
some climate researchers that the 1990s were the warmest decade in the warmest century of
the past millennium. This claim is embodied in the famous "hockey stick" curve, produced by
Michael Mann of the University of Virginia in 1998, based on "proxy" records of past
temperature, such as air bubbles in ice cores and growth rings in tree and coral. (see "Areas of
contention") Sceptics have attacked the findings over poor methodology used, and their
criticism has been confirmed by climate modellers, who have recently recognised that such
proxy studies systematically underestimate past variability. As one Met Office scientist put it:
"We cannot make claims as to the 1990s being the warmest decade."

There is also room for uncertainty in inferences drawn from the rise in temperature over the
past 150 years. The warming itself is real enough, but that doesn't necessarily mean that
human activity is to blame. Sceptics say that the warming could be natural, and again they
have a point. It is now recognised that up to 40 per cent of the climatic variation since 1890 is
probably due to two natural phenomena. The first is solar cycles, which influence the amount
of radiation reaching the Earth, and some scientist have argued that increased solar activity
can account for most of the warming of the past 150 years. The second is the changing
frequency of volcanic eruptions, which produce airborne particles that can shade and hence
cool the planet for a year or more. This does not mean, however, that the sceptics can claim
victory, as no known natural effects can explain the 0.5 °C warming seen in the past 30 years.
In fact, natural changes alone would have caused a marginal global cooling (see Graph).
“Natural changes alone would have caused a marginal global cooling in the past 30 years”

How hot will it get?

In the face of such evidence, the vast majority of scientists, even sceptical ones, now agree
that our activities are making the planet warmer, and that we can expect more warming as we
release more CO2 into the atmosphere. This leaves two critical questions. How much warming
can we expect? And how much should we care about it? Here the uncertainties begin in
earnest.

The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere now stands at around 375 parts per million. A
doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels of 280 parts per million, which could happen as
early as 2050, will add only about 1 °C to average global temperatures, other things being
equal. But if there's one thing we can count on, it is that other things will not be equal; some
important things will change.

All experts agree that the planet is likely to respond in a variety of ways, some of which will
dampen down the warming (negative feedback) while others will amplify it (positive
feedback). Assessing the impacts of these feedbacks has been a central task of the UN's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a co-operative agency set up 17 years ago that
has harnessed the work of thousands of scientists. Having spent countless hours of
supercomputer time creating and refining models to simulate the planet's climate system, the
IPCC concludes that the feedbacks will be overwhelmingly positive. The only question, it
says, is just how big this positive feedback will be.

The latest IPCC assessment is that doubling CO2 levels will warm the world by anything from
1.4 to 5.8 °C. In other words, this predicts a rise in global temperature from pre-industrial
levels of around 14.8 °C to between 16.2 and 20.6 °C. Even at the low end, this is probably
the biggest fluctuation in temperature that has occurred in the history of human civilisation.
But uncertainties within the IPCC models remain, and the sceptics charge that they are so
great that this conclusion is not worth the paper it is written on. So what are the positive
feedbacks and how much uncertainty surrounds them?
Melting of polar ice is almost certainly one. Where the ice melts, the new, darker surface
absorbs more heat from the sun, and so warms the planet. This is already happening. The
second major source of positive feedback is water vapour. As this is responsible for a bigger
slice of today's greenhouse effect than any other gas, including CO2, any change in the
amount of moisture in the atmosphere is critical. A warmer world will evaporate more water
from the oceans, giving an extra push to warming. But there is a complication. Some of the
water vapour will turn to cloud, and the net effect of cloudier skies on heat coming in and
going out is far from clear. Clouds reflect energy from the sun back into space, but they also
trap heat radiated from the surface, especially at night. Whether warming or cooling
predominates depends on the type and height of clouds. The IPCC calculates that the
combined effect of extra water vapour and clouds will increase warming, but accepts that
clouds are the biggest source of uncertainty in the models.

Sceptics who pounce on such uncertainties should remember, however, that they cut both
ways. Indeed, new research based on thousands of different climate simulation models run
using the spare computing capacity of idling PCs, suggest that doubling CO2 levels could
increase temperatures by as much as 11 °C (Nature, vol 434, p 403).

Recent analysis suggests that clouds could have a more powerful warming effect than once
thought - possibly much more powerful (New Scientist, 24 July 2004, p 44). And there could
be other surprise positive feedbacks that do not yet feature in the climate models. For
instance, a release of some of the huge quantities of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, that
are frozen into the Siberian permafrost and the ocean floor could have a catastrophic warming
effect. And an end to ice formation in the Arctic could upset ocean currents and even shut
down the Gulf Stream - the starting point for the blockbuster movie The Day After Tomorrow.

There are counterbalancing negative feedbacks, some of which are already in the models.
These include the ability of the oceans to absorb heat from the atmosphere, and of some
pollutants - such as the sulphate particles that make acid rain - to shade the planet. But both
are double-edged. The models predict that the ocean's ability to absorb heat will decline as the
surface warms, as mixing between less dense, warm surface waters and the denser cold depths
becomes more difficult. Meanwhile, sulphate and other aerosols could already be masking far
stronger underlying warming effects than are apparent from measured temperatures. Aerosols
last only a few weeks in the atmosphere, while greenhouse gases last for decades. So efforts
to cut pollution by using technologies such as scrubbers to remove sulphur dioxide from
power station stacks could trigger a surge in temperatures.

“Efforts to cut aerosol pollution could trigger a surge in temperatures”

Sceptics also like to point out that most models do not yet include negative feedback from
vegetation, which is already growing faster in a warmer world, and soaking up more CO2. But
here they may be onto a loser, as the few climate models so far to include plants show that
continued climate change is likely to damage their ability to absorb CO2, potentially turning a
negative feedback into a positive one.

Achilles' heel?

More credible is the suggestion that some other important negative feedbacks have been left
out. One prominent sceptic, meteorologist Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, has made an interesting case that warming may dry out the upper levels of the
innermost atmospheric layer, the troposphere, and less water means a weaker greenhouse
effect. Lindzen, who is one of the few sceptics with a research track record that most climate
scientists respect, says this drying effect could negate all the positive feedbacks and bring the
warming effect of a doubling of CO2 levels back to 1 °C. While there is little data to back up
his idea, some studies suggest that these outer reaches are not as warm as IPCC models
predict (see "Areas of contention). This could be a mere wrinkle in the models or something
more important. But if catastrophists have an Achilles' heel, this could be it.

Where does this leave us? Actually, with a surprising degree of consensus about the basic
science of global warming - at least among scientists. As science historian Naomi Oreskes of
the University of California, San Diego, wrote in Science late last year (vol 306, p 1686):
"Politicians, economists, journalists and others may have the impression of confusion,
disagreement or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

Her review of all 928 peer-reviewed papers on climate change published between 1993 and
2003 showed the consensus to be real and near universal. Even sceptical scientists now accept
that we can expect some warming. They differ from the rest only in that they believe most
climate models overestimate the positive feedback and underestimate the negative, and they
predict that warming will be at the bottom end of the IPCC's scale

For the true hard-liners, of course, the scientific consensus must, by definition, be wrong. As
far as they are concerned the thousands of scientists behind the IPCC models have either been
seduced by their own doom-laden narrative or are engaged in a gigantic conspiracy. They say
we are faced with what the philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn called a "paradigm
problem".

"Most scientists spend their lives working to shore up the reigning world view - the dominant
paradigm - and those who disagree are always much fewer in number," says climatologist
Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, a leading proponent of this
view. The drive to conformity is accentuated by peer review, which ensures that only papers
in support of the paradigm appear in the literature, Michaels says, and by public funding that
gives money to research into the prevailing "paradigm of doom". Rebels who challenge
prevailing orthodoxies are often proved right, he adds.

But even if you accept this sceptical view of how science is done, it doesn't mean the
orthodoxy is always wrong. We know for sure that human activity is influencing the global
environment, even if we don't know by how much. We might still get away with it: the
sceptics could be right, and the majority of the world's climate scientists wrong. It would be a
lucky break. But how lucky do you feel?

From issue 2486 of New Scientist magazine, 12 February 2005, page 38