Climate Change Human Link Evidence “Vanishing” Republished with updated information
According to a recent BBC story based on a review by Dr. Peter Stott (UK Met Office) of recent climate change evidence, the climate change human link is "stronger" than ever. That is a remarkable conclusion in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. An examination of the evidence reveals startling inconsistencies in arguments claiming global warming and increased ocean acidity due to human activity burning fossil fuels!
According to the story, Stott’s analysis is based on 110 research papers on the subject. The questions that come to mind are, (1) over what period of time were these papers written and, (2) what were the total number of such papers written over that time? Put another way, how selective was Stott with the material he reviewed? Clearly, Stott did not avail himself of the full body of information at his disposal.
Let’s examine Stott’s claims against the real world evidence:
... the Earth is changing rapidly, probably because of greenhouse gases.
Presumably what is meant is that the Earth’s climate is changing rapidly. "Rapidly"? What is the basis for comparison? Earth’s climate has gone through cycles of rapid change and relative stability (see charts below). Over what period of time? What is the evidence to suggest change is "probably because of greenhouse gasses"? Of course, nothing is provided that would give the reader any perspective for the alleged recent "rapid" change. Neither is the reader provided with any basis whatsoever for the claim that "greenhouse gasses" have any causation where climate change is concerned. Then there is the little problem that human's produce a tiny fraction of all greenhouse gases found in the atmosphere. Without even a basis for the claim that all greenhouse gases have a meaningful impact on climate warming, we are expected to believe that the puny human contribution to just one of them (CO2) is dominating warming? This is preposterous, particularly considering the historic climate record suggests just the contrary.
... the IPCC’s  report concluded ... "unequivocal" evidence ... Earth was warming ... due to burning of fossil fuels. Since then the evidence that human activities are responsible for a rise in temperatures has increased ...
Another remarkable statement, considering the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report has recently been revealed to have been tainted with bad information and shepherded to its conclusions by a few scientists with vested interests in alternate energy schemes, led by the IPCC Chairman, Rajendra Kumar Pachauri. The numerous mistakes (Himalayan glaciers disappearing, sea level rise, conclusion of human causation) in the 2007 assessment were so blatant that the IPCC is appointing an independent committee to investigate its procedures. One can only wonder how "independent" that self-appointed committee will prove to be.
The study, which looks at research published since the IPCC’s report, has found that changes in Arctic sea ice, atmospheric moisture, saltiness of parts of the Atlantic Ocean and temperature changes in the Antarctic are consistent with human influence on our climate.
Because there is no evidence of any connection, it is absurd to suggest that isolated changes in Atlantic Ocean salinity and atmospheric moisture content are traceable to human activity. Neither observation is without precedent. This is a good example of "piling on" designed to frighten those who do not possess the education to realize they are being manipulated by a massive scare campaign (one that appears to be coming apart at its seams!). Note also that the statement made is that such changes are "consistent" with human influence on our climate. In other words, they really have no idea what is really causing these changes, consequently, such changes are consistent with any imaginable causation!
As climate alarmists lose the "greenhouse gas" argument, they have to find another way to bash carbon-based fuels. They have recently begun to warn of increasing ocean acidity, and, of course, this too is presumed due to human activity! But it is also fiction. Nevertheless, the EPA is considering “ways the states can address rising acidity levels in oceans, which pose a serious threat to shellfish and other marine life.” Naturally, increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is claimed to be responsible for the rising ocean acidity. However, oceans are not "acidic" at all! Oceans have a high pH between 7.9 and 8.2, which means they are alkaline, not "acidic". Oceans have been alkaline for millions of years, despite volcanoes having greatly increased atmospheric CO2 to levels much higher than what we have is today. Yet, despite these changes in atmospheric CO2, there has been no consequent change in either climate or ocean pH. Because oceans are alkaline, if there were an issue of lowering pH, the issue should be referred to as “reducing ocean alkalinity” not "increasing ocean acidity". So the lies are spread because few would get excited about "reducing ocean alkalinity". The pH changes are miniscule when induced by seasonal and/or periodic climate variation that lead to a change in the balance of oceans' emission and absorption of CO2. When oceans warm, the balance shifts toward emissions of CO2; when oceans cool, the balance shifts toward absorption of CO2. In either case, the changes are not significant. Greater absorption of CO2 decreases ocean pH, making oceans less alkaline, but they are still alkaline. And by claiming oceans are absorbing more atmospheric CO2, alarmists are actually requiring colder oceans, which refutes their theory of global warming!
Dr. Stott: "What this study shows is that the evidence has strengthened for human influence on climate and we know that because we've looked at evidence across the climate system and what this shows very clearly is a consistent picture of a warming world ..."
What evidence? We haven’t been provided with any evidence thus far! We have not even been provided a plausible pathway for human impact on climate. A clearly "consistent picture of a warming world" has little to do with proving any human connection. Climate changes. It warms, it cools. Even the most cursory examination of climate change over the past 300 years shows that much. The amount of climate change in the past 30 years during which "human-caused-global-warming" became the focus of environmental politics is indistinguishable from normal climate variation. Recent climate change cannot even be detected on a scale of change over millions of years. Recent change is not discernible when viewed within the record of climate change over hundreds of thousands of years. Recent change is challenging to discern and well within the range of variability over the past 10,000 years which shows a steady trend of cooler peaks of warming episodes that occur on a scale of hundreds of years. Current warming is completely consistent with the normal climate change record. No evidence whatsoever is presented that establishes any link between human activity and recent climate change. None!
The rest of the BBC article simply rehashes what was written earlier in slightly different terms and reveals no evidence of the claimed human linkage.
The entire "study" by Dr. Stott provides no linkage to any human activity and climate. It appears that the UK’s CRU and Dr. Phil Jones aren’t the only UK agency and scientist with a problem being honest with the public about climate change.
It is worth noting that this is the same Dr. Peter Stott who was included in no less than 29 Climategate emails released to the public last autumn. Other members of the Climategate email clique whose email addresses appeared with Stott’s included Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, Stephen Schneider, Myles Allen, Simon Tett, Gareth Jones, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Benjamin Santer, Thomas R Karl, Jim Hansen, and Michael Oppenheimer (search for "Stott" at http://www.eastangliaemails.com/search.php to view the email messages). This is virtually a "who’s who" of the clique of scientists supporting IPCC efforts to claim that humans are significantly altering climate in the absence of any real supporting evidence.
Despite these checkered associations and complete lack of any real evidence, the BBC expects us to believe that the "evidence" Stott presents is real and mitigates the recently exposed revelations of impropriety by IPCC members and the Climategate clique. Rubbish!
And it gets worse.
This same "clique" as characterized by Dr. Wegman’s 2006 investigation into the fraudulent "Hockey Stick" methodology of Michael Mann, et al (pdf), systematically limited "peer review" of climate change papers to members of their clique. To no one’s surprise, this "peer review" process consistently rubber-stamped the clique’s mutual studies based upon assumption-backed theory supported by highly dubious computer model results, deeply flawed theory, poor temperature recording procedures, doctored temperature data records, fraudulent adjustments for urban heat effects, and conclusions that do not flow from the evidence.
It is worth noting that Wegman, a world-renowned expert in the fields of statistics and mathematical statistics and statistical methods, has been demonized by climate alarmists in response to his report. The stock response of climate alarmists to any criticism of their scam is to demonize the messenger while ignoring the substance of findings with which they disagree.
In addition to these activities, this clique exerts out-of-proportion influence over editorial boards of publications and professional organizations in order to both create the illusion of human impact on climate and limit the public’s exposure to any information other than that of their own creation. Such activities are the antithesis of sound scientific investigative practices. Ironically, these "scientists" have often been cited as a "consensus" of all scientists, a laughably inaccurate claim that vastly overstates the clique’s standing among climate scientists.
What follows (contrary to Stott’s assessment) is a more reasonable assessment of the state of climate change based on what is actually known today.
Climate Change Human Link Evidence "Vanishing"
A review of current climate conditions make it increasingly clear that human activities have no discernible impact on climate change.
The evidence for discernible human impact on climate is weaker now than it was when the IPCC published its last summary assessment in 2007 claiming, without any corroborating evidence, a near certainty that humans were causing global climate change. Note that the cutoff for new information considered by that report was December 2005 at a time when information was rapidly changing and increasing numbers of scientists were disputing the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory. Over the past four years many scientists have abandoned support of the AGW theory in the face of mounting evidence of fraud and mismanagement of the IPCC and fundamental flaws in AGW theory.
These conclusions are based on both real world data assessments and the mounting evidence of widespread fraud and collusion among a small, tightly-knit group of "climate" scientists whose sole objective has been to provide evidence of significant human impact on climate change, regardless of whether or not such significant impact exists.
Recent climate change is now recognized as being well within precedents for climate variability over the past 12,000 years where a continuing decline in the trend of peaks of warming periods is evident. Every prior warming episode has had a peak temperature warmer than the present estimate of global temperature. Note that the following graph (from Wikipedia) has most recent time at the left and ends at 2004.
Rapid changes in climate have been common throughout Earth’s climate history and such change is now overwhelmingly recognized to be natural. The following chart depicts the geologic record of global climate and global atmospheric concentration of CO2:
Current time is at the right of the graph. Note that, despite the current interglacial (Holocene) we are in a cold era. This chart shows that Earth’s typical temperature is much warmer than during cold eras. It also reveals that current CO2 levels are near historic lows!
Climate change in recent years has been identified as strongly linked to cyclic changes in ocean and atmospheric currents (PDO, NAO, AMO, ENSO, etc.) that significantly impact global weather and climate. None of the changes can be attributed to human activity. Recent reversal of the PDO, NAO, and AMO from warm phase to cold phase is thought to be responsible for the record cold and snowfall throughout the Northern Hemisphere over the past several years.
While the 2007 IPCC report stated that evidence was "unequivocal" that Earth was warming and it was likely due to mankind burning fossil fuels, we now know that the IPCC had no scientific basis for making that claim. Indeed, the entire IPCC process has recently been revealed to be severely compromised by fraud, inappropriate data manipulation, and conclusions from unproven theory in place of sound scientific evidence.
To this date, no scientist still supporting the AGW theory can explain why the theory's required greenhouse warming signature in the tropical mid-troposphere is entirely missing! This evidence is sufficient to render the AGW theory disproven.
While the rapidly shrinking number of scientists who still support the AGW theory have attempted to fight back by making unsupportable claims about recent climate change (example: Stott's "assessment"), it has become very evident that Arctic Sea ice has substantially increased since its minimum extent in 2007, that evidence exists that Arctic Sea ice has periodically declined even more substantially than it had in 2007, and changing patterns of rainfall and humidity are well within the limits of typical climate change that has been characteristic of the current interglacial period that began more than 12,000 years ago. These changes are not driven by human use of fossil fuels (for which no proven linkage exists), but by periodic changes in ocean and atmospheric currents that are perfectly normal, not very well understood, and well within historic bounds.
Bob Webster, a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.
A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.