|
STERN REPORT - THE LIES CONTINUE.
I have just waded through the "overwhelming body of scientific evidence" presented in the Stern report.http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/9A2/80/Ch_1__Science.pdf http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm First thing is that he really insults our intelligence. How can Stern report on Global Warming without balancing the benefits of Global Warming with the problems of Global Warming? Stern mentions two small benefits of the Earth warming by 1 degree, but for over one degree it is all bad. He only mentions possible benefits of Global Warming such as the fertilization effect of carbon dioxide on plant growth, so he can deprecate that benefit. Come on now, lets get real. The Earth warms by several degrees and it is all bad - no good at all - yeah, right! --------------------------------
He blandly states that we do not know how much the world will warm and then claims to know that it will all be catastrophic.Here... "The question of precisely how much the world will warm in the future is still an area of active research. The Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)1 in 2001 was the last comprehensive assessment of the state of the science. This chapter uses the 2001 report as a base and builds on it with more recent studies that embody a more explicit treatment of risk." --------------------------------
Stern
asserts that there is no doubt that humans are responsible for all the
increase in carbon dioxide in air. This is absolutely crucial to the whole argument and yet this is the best he can do for a scientific reference to justify itHere... "2 The human origin of the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is demonstrated through, for example, the isotope composition and hemispheric gradient of atmospheric carbon dioxide (IPCC 2001a)". That only proves where the Gas now found in air came from and it is true, BUT, it does not establish a scientific "causal link" proving that humans raised the concentration in air from 280ppmvol to 380ppmvol - they are relying on coincidence. There are natural factors at play that could be responsible. --------------------------------
Stern dismisses the fact that the CO2 graph does not follow the Earth's temperature graph with this... "And there is uncertainty in linking temperature change to amounts of GHGs in the atmosphere." --------------------------------
It is amazing, the amount of junk science that is being done. For instance Stern makes the preposterous claim that we can model the Carbon Cycle... "Rising temperatures and changes in rainfall patterns are expected to weaken the ability of the Earth’s natural sinks to absorb carbon dioxide (Box 1.3), causing a larger fraction of human emissions to accumulate in the atmosphere. While this finding is not new, until recently the effect was not quantified. New models, which explicitly include interactions between carbon sinks and climate, suggest that by 2100, greenhouse gas concentrations will be 20 – 200 ppm higher than they would have otherwise been, amplifying warming by 0.1 – 1.5°C.21 Some models predict future reductions in tropical rainforests, particularly the Amazon, alsoreleasing more carbon into the atmosphere22. Chapter 8 discusses the implications of weakened carbon sinks for stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations." He does this to counter the perfectly reasonable claims that human CO2 will just fertilize more plant growth and be quickly absorbed, The carbon cycle is biological and extremely complex - it just cannot be properly modeled. How do we know how zillions of microscopic plants and animals will behave if we add CO2 to air - we don't of course - we cannot predict that with a computer program. --------------------------------
Stern makes the preposterous claim that science can be determined by consensus and has the gall to claim there has been a debate - when was the last time you heard a climate cynic on the mass media? There has been no debate..."The IPCC concluded in 2001 that there is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over at least the past 50 years is attributable to human activities.10 Their confidence is based on several decades of active debate and effort to scrutinize the detail of the evidence and to investigate a broad range of hypotheses." The scientific doctrine determines that science is decided by a few individuals with reasoned, reproducible, theory and evidence and who then generally overturn the existing consensus. So sad what these people are doing to science. --------------------------------
Stern offers this magnificent piece of obfuscation - clear evidence that Stern is fudging the whole document..."The main positive feedback comes from water vapour, a very powerful greenhouse gas itself. Evidence shows that, as expected from basic physics, a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapour and traps more heat, amplifying the initial warming.17". Problem is...
1/ Water vapour is the ONLY effective greenhouse gas - it is typically 10,000 ppm vol in air, it's molecule has a greenhouse effect several times that of CO2 which is only 380ppm vol. and which is totally insignificant as a greenhouse gas on its own. 2/ The temperature of the planet obviously stabilizes itself - if we had the positive feedback claimed there for water vapour we would just have a runaway greenhouse effect. It would runaway every time the Earth warmed (yes Virginia the Earth does warm all by itself). There must be a negative feedback in play. 3/ He has singled out Professor Lindzen, a prominent Greenhouse critic, for denigration here. Stay tuned I'll let you know how Prof. Lindzen reacts. --------------------------------
Speaking of fudging the whole document.Stern has the gall to mention the infamous "Hockey Stick". A US Senate committee determined that the "Hockey Stick" was a fake. The whole point of the "Hockey stick debate" is not what the Earth's temperature has or has not been doing, but that the IPCC, on which Stern is relying totally, published and relied upon a FAKED document and no amount of "faked but true" argument is going to alter the fact that the IPCC DID NOT CHECK IT PROPERLY. It discredits the whole TAR 3 document and the IPCC and thus Global Warming itself. http://www.uoguelph.ca/%7Ermckitri/research/trc.html http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-10-28-schulz_x.htm http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19835476-31478,00.html http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf http://www.tcsdaily.com/discussionForum.aspx?fldIdTopic=8245&fldIdMsg=31029 http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5770 --------------------------------
Stern claims..."Most climate models predict increases in rainfall at high latitudes" and then speculates on the ice caps melting - the two are mutually exclusive, nobody can claim that the polar climate will warm above zero even in summer - more precipitation means more ice cap, not less. --------------------------------
So much for the movie! The Gulf Stream is not going to stop and freeze Europe and eastern Nth. America after all. (phew!) Stern confirms... "Any sustained weakening of the THC (sic. gulf stream) is likely to have a cooling effect on the climates of Europe and eastern North America, but this would only offset a portion of the regional warming due to greenhouse gases." --------------------------------
Stern
offers this pathetic (follows) consensus argument as proof that we will get all
the weather disasters predicted by Global Warming and then uses by it for all his doomsday prognostications. Stern here... "45 Huntington (2006) reviewed more than 50 peer-reviewed studies and found that many aspects of the global water cycle have intensified in the past 50 years, including rainfall and evaporation. Modeling work by Wetherald & Manabe (2002) confirms that warming will increase rates of both precipitation and evaporation". Waiting, waiting, waiting, for proof - sorry but "many aspects of the global water cycle have intensified" proves NOTHING, neither does "modeling work". All of Stern is based on modeling work. Modeling work is just that - someone's model of what they think may be real. --------------------------------
Stern keeps talking about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet when the huge magority of the world's ice is in the East Antarctic Ice Sheet. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is trivial.--------------------------------
The most significant piece of the Stern report could be this conclusion."We must be very clear that this is an international problem and action must be multilateral." Almost none of them are honouring the token Kyoto Protocol. This gives them their escape clause. They can justify doing nothing as long as one magor power stays out of the Global Warming consensus. |