Wednesday, May 06, 2009

An Independent Analysis of Global Warming - by Heinz Lycklama, PhD in Nuclear Physics Global Warming Analysis Report
7.0 What conclusions can we draw from the analysis?

As the result of my reading and analysis, the major conclusions that I draw from my analysis of the issue are as follows:

1. The extent of the GW phenomena does not appear to be as great as has been presented to the public by the IPCC and the popular media.

2. The number of dissenting climate scientists is greater, by at least an order of magnitude, than the number of climate scientists who have contributed to the IPCC report. The number of dissenters is far too large to ignore.

3. The IPCC seems to have focused on the last 25 to 30 years during which a GW cycle has been observed. IPCC appears to have based its predictions of increased GW for the next century on the continuation of the recent GW trend, and ignoring prior trends in global temperatures, both warming and cooling.

4. Many climate scientists have determined that we are now entering a 25 to 30 year GC period, and not a period of GW.

5. The science behind GW is not well understood and is far from settled.

6. The economic and people costs of any proposed GW solution are not well researched or understood.

7. GW appears to be largely due to natural causes, with possibly minor contributions from man-made causes.

8. Technical contributions from hundreds of climate scientists outside of the IPCC have not been adequately considered by the IPCC in determining the extent or causes of GW.

9. Any extensive and costly action to control GW is premature because of significantly different opinions offered by different groups of climate scientists.

10. Deception, the unbalanced use of scientific data, and exaggeration by certain policy makers and politicians have damaged the credibility of the good work done by IPCC scientists.

11. Climate scientists need to regroup and be more inclusive of research done by climate scientists with opposing viewpoints in order to develop a true scientific consensus on the extent and cause(s) of GW. [Via Climate Realists]
Alarmist Romm vs Alarmist Hansen: Memo to James Hansen: Your opposition to Waxman-Markey is ill-conceived and unhelpful. There isn’t going to be a carbon tax nor should there be. Get over it and move on.
Why oh why do even smart people like NASA’s James Hansen think that there is such a thing as a “simple carbon tax”? Have you folks ever looked at the friggin’ tax code?

No comments: