Transcript Gould - University of Hartford`s Academic Web Server

South Windsor Rotary Club
South Windsor, CT
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
“Global Warming/Climate Change”
Dissecting the Claims
Exposing the Methods
Laurence I. Gould
Physics Department, University of Hartford
http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/LGOULD
http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.html
There continues to be an increasing number of scientists and public figures around the world who
are challenging the dominant political- and media-driven claims, bolstered by so-called “consensus”
scientific views, that dangerous "global warming/climate change" is caused primarily by humanproduced carbon dioxide. This public talk will show that the weight of scientific evidence strongly
contradicts the alarmist claims. It will also explain what are some likely scientific, educational,
economic, and societal consequences resulting from the corruption of the scientific method.
Introduction
• Introduction to some issues about
Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmism (AGWA)
• Possible Economic Consequences
• Temperature
• Some Major Climate Players affecting Temperatures
• The Sun
• Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and Temperature
• Models
• Polar Bears threatened?
• Intensification of Climate Catastrophes?
• Methodological Errors
• Possible Consequences for Science
• Possible Economic Consequences — Summary
• Moral Issues
• Summary
Disasters Video
There are enough!
A. Horn
A. Horn
A. Horn
A. Horn
A. Horn
A. Horn
A. Horn
A. Horn
Earth in a Frying Pan!
A. Horn
Earth on Fire!
A.
A. Horn
Horn
Fire on Earth!
A. Horn
Possible
Economic Consequences
of AGWA-stimulated Policies
AGWA — Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmism(ist)
Figure 25: In 2006, the United States obtained 84.9% of its energy from hydrocarbons, 8.2%
from nuclear fuels, 2.9% from hydroelectric dams, 2.1% from wood, 0.8% from biofuels, 0.4%
from waste, 0.3% from geothermal, and 0.3% from wind and solar radiation. The U.S. uses 21
million barrels of oil per day 27% from OPEC, 17% from Canada and Mexico, 16% from
others, and 40% produced in the U.S. (95). The cost of imported oil and gas at $60 per barrel
and $7 per 1,000 ft3 in 2007 is about $300 billion per year. [Mention “Cap & Trade”]
U.S. Energy (2006)? 85% from Hydrocarbons!
Petition Project
Figure 26: Delivered cost per kilowatt hour of electrical energy in Great
Britain in 2006, without CO2 controls (126). These estimates include all
capital and operational expenses for a period of 50 years. Micro wind or
solar are units installed for individual homes.
Petition Project
cap-and-trade yields
an equivalent of a
permanent tax
increase for the
average American
household, which
was estimated to be
$1,100 in 2008
$1,437 in 2015
$1,979 in 2030
$2,979 in 2050
A. Horn
Increase of price paid for energy —
ELECTRICITY prices will increase 5 - 15% by 2015
George C. Marshall
Institute: The Cost of
Climate Regulation for
American Households
(Buckley & Mityakov,
Clemson Univeristy)
NATURAL GAS prices increase 12 - 50% by 2015
GASOLINE price increase 9 - 145% by 2015 [increase of price per gallon: 16 cents - $2.58]
(using the January 2009 reported retail price of $1.78 per gallon).
BRIEF COMMENTS ABOUT
POPULAR PERCEPTIONS
1. Alternative energy sources would decrease our reliance on oil. TRUE
2. Pollution is damaging to the environment. Also TRUE, depending on
what’s meant by “pollution” and considering the cost/benefit tradeoffs
related to industrial emissions and standard of living.
3. Anthropogenic emission of CO2 is causing dangerous global
warming. NOT SUPPORTED, regardless of the widespread claims,
because of the scientific evidence and analysis which contradict such
claims.
4. The existence of a range of climate-changes/disasters support the AGWA
belief. NOT SUPPORTED, even though it is a prevalent non sequitur that
continues to be widely propagated.
Global Mean Surface
Temperature
(GMST)
“So I’d like to emphasize the fact that we’re at a stage where warming is taking place at a much
faster rate. And, clearly, if we don’t bring about some changes, we would have much faster changes
in the future.�”
— R.K. Pachauri, Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
2008 Wallace Wurth Memorial Lecture; 23 October 2008; University of New South Wales (Sydney, Australia). Title: Our Vulnerable Earth: Climate Change, the IPCC
and the role of Generation Green�
Issues and Events Climate changes for peace prize winners The award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize delighted scientists and the public
but underscored the US government's lack of action to reduce global warming.Physics Today December 2007, page 22
WHAT IF YOU LIVED IN 1940?!
WHAT IF YOU LIVED IN 1950?!
1940
1950
Two green arrows with their years added by me.
A. Horn
WARM is GOOD!
A. Horn
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
http://www.globalwarmingclassroom.info/index.htm
The Sun!
A. Horn
A. Horn
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Smokestacks and CO2 ?!
AIT: The Earth’s atmosphere is so thin that we have the capacity to dramatically alter the concentration of some of its basic
molecular components. In particular, we have vastly increased the amount of carbon dioxide—the most important of the socalled greenhouse gases. (25)
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Lewis: Over the past century and a half, atmospheric CO2 levels have risen from about 280 parts per million (ppm) to about 380
ppm—roughly a 35% increase
Similar to a two-page spread (pp. 24 - 25 of a 328 page book) in “An Inconvenient Truth” by Al Gore.
A. Horn
Given a 100,000 person stadium.
If each person stood for one molecule of the atmosphere…
then about 40 people stand for all the CO2 molecules!
About how many people stand for the human contribution?
ONE !!
Cf.,A. Horn
A. Horn
A. Horn
Nature versus Us
A. Horn
A. Horn
Figure 24: Calculated (1,2) growth rate enhancement of wheat, young orange
trees, and very young pine trees already taking place as a result of atmospheric
enrichment by CO2 at from 1885 to 2007 (a), and expected as result of
atmospheric enrichment by CO2 to a level of 600 ppm (b).
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Is
NOT
“Pollution”
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
and Temperature
Does the former “push” the latter?
Carbon Dioxide Increasing BUT
World Temperature Falling!
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Correlation_Last_Decade.pdf
Spreading
False Ideas
To
Children
Reviewed by:
In “An Inconvenient Truth”(pp. 66-67 of the book; also film) similar curves are presented, but with the one for CO 2 above
the one for Temperature. Gore, commenting on how they “fit together” says: “the most important part of it is this:
When there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature increases because more heat from the Sun is
trapped inside.” [Last sentence false: (1) no correlation and (2) convection not considered; cf., Lindzen E&E]
Models
o
C
1.4
1.2
A
Prediction, 1988 …
B
1.0
0.8
C
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
A : Hansen's worst case
B : Hansen's likely outturn
C : Hansen: CO2 stabilized
D : Observed (US NCDC)
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010 2020
The
graph
that
started
the
scare
Hansen
(1988)50
C. Monckton
o
C
1.4
A
…
and
outturn,
2007
1.2
B
1.0
0.8
C
0.6
D
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
A : Hansen's worst case
B : Hansen's likely outturn
C : Hansen: CO2 stabilized
D : Observed (US NCDC)
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010 2020
Hansen
(1988);
NCDC
(2007)51
C. Monckton
If it disagrees with experiment [scientific
evidence] it is wrong. In that simple statement is
the key to science. It does not make any
difference how beautiful your guess is. It does
not make any difference how smart you are,
who made the guess, or what his name is — if it
disagrees with experiment it is wrong.
— Richard Feynman
The Character of Physical Law, The MIT Press, 1965, p. 156.
“In climate research and modelling, we
should recognize that we are dealing with
a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and
therefore that long-term prediction of future
climate states is not possible."
“In climate research and modelling, we
should recognize that we are dealing with
a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and
therefore that long-term prediction of future
climate states is not possible."
—IPCC Third Assessment Report
(TAR; 2001), Section 142.2.2, page 774
Christopher Essex <[email protected]
Sat, 09 Aug 2008
Polar Bears Threatened?
There are
20 significant populations of polar bears
around the top of the globe. Of the
13 in Canada, 11 are either stable or increasing in size.
"They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present,"
according to Taylor
In Canada, where a decade ago our Arctic had 12,000 bears,
Taylor and other bear specialists estimate there are now 15,000 bears,
an increase of 25 per cent in just 10 years.
.
Worldwide there are
22,000 to 25,000 polar bears
whereas
50 years ago — 8,000 to 10,000 -- before the first
SUV, before Kyoto, before most people had even heard of the global
warming theory -- there were just
Dr. Mitch Taylor, polar bear biologist for the government of Nunavut, and one of
Intensification of Climate
Catastrophes?
• Glaciers
• Tornados
• Hurricanes
• Sea Levels
The fact of something
warming/melting
does not tell us the
cause
Figure 11: Global sea level measured by surface gauges between 1807 and 2002
(24) and by satellite between 1993 and 2006 (25). Satellite measurements are shown
in gray and agree with tide gauge measurements. The overall trend is an increase of
7 inches per century. Intermediate trends are 9, 0, 12, 0, and 12 inches per century,
respectively. This trend lags the temperature increase, so it predates the increase in
hydrocarbon use even more than is shown. It is unaffected by the very large increase
in hydrocarbon use.
Petition Project
http://www.gocomics.com/feature_items/explore?page=1&tag=32454&tag_name=GlobalWarming
Methodological Errors
• Affirming the Consequent
• Appeal to Numbers — “Consensus”
• Appeal to Authority
• Post-normal Science
• Ad hominem
• Precautionary Principle
Lulled by “Logic”?
IF it rained THEN the streets are wet.
The streets are wet THEREFORE it rained.
Error in Logic!
Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent
IF there is anthropogenic “global warming” THEN the
Arctic ice will melt.
The Arctic ice is melting THEREFORE there is
anthropogenic “global warming.”
Same Error in Logic!
—sea ice coverage in Arctic & Antarctic: Compare
A complete[?*] list of things caused by global warming
Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks,
attack of the killer jellyfish (Laurie David),
avalanches reduced, avalanches increased,
Baghdad snow, …, bird visitors drop, birds
confused, birds return early, birds driven north, …, early marriages, early spring, earlier
pollen season, Earth biodiversity crisis, Earth dying, Earth even hotter,
Earth light dimming, Earth lopsided, Earth melting, Earth morbid fever,
Earth on fast track, Earth past point of no return,
Earth slowing down, Earth spins faster,
Earth to explode, earth upside down, earthquakes, …,
extinctions (human, civilisation, logic, Inuit, smallest butterfly, cod, ladybirds, pikas,
polar bears, walrus, toads, plants, salmon, trout, wild flowers, woodlice,
a million species, half of all animal and plant species, mountain species, not polar bears,
barrier reef, leaches, tropical insects), …, glacial earthquakes, glacial retreat,
glacial growth, …, kidney stones, killer cornflakes, …, water bills double,
…,weather patterns awry, Western aid cancelled out, West Nile fever, whales lose weight,
whales move north, whales wiped out, …
* Recent plane crash in the Hudson River!
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
C
O
N
S
E
N
S
U
S
?
!
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Qualifications of Signers Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have
obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate
scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.The current list of
31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD;
6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and
DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.All of the listed signers have formal
educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to
Many of the signers currently work in
climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental,
geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly
involved in the climate change controversy.
the petition statement.
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html
Consensus & Science
Einstein and Consensus
200 against his theory…
One valid refutation is sufficient.
“… the number of scientists is not important. The only [his stress]
thing that’s important is if the scientists are correct [his stress]; that’s
the important part.”
— Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in Physics
(panel at Lindau, 1 July 2008)
Or, pictorially…
Possible Consequences
for Science
of AGWA-stimulated Policies
ABOUT DANGERS TO SCIENCE
Science will get a black eye from the AGWA misrepresentations and
distortions and suppression of information:
What will happen to the public’s support of science?
What will happen to the Funding of legitimate science?
And what is happening?
What is happening to the Funding of climate science at the expense of the
other sciences?
Furthermore, what Message conveyed to students
who would have gone into science?
And what will happen to
Science education in the U.S.?
Further
Economic Consequences
of AGWA-stimulated Policies
Reduction of Mean Global Temperature if all Kyoto
signatories had reduced emissions?
0.07 degrees Centigrade !!!
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Is
NOT
“Pollution”
Figure 25: In 2006, the United States obtained 84.9% of its energy from hydrocarbons, 8.2%
from nuclear fuels, 2.9% from hydroelectric dams, 2.1% from wood, 0.8% from biofuels, 0.4%
from waste, 0.3% from geothermal, and 0.3% from wind and solar radiation. The U.S. uses 21
million barrels of oil per day 27% from OPEC, 17% from Canada and Mexico, 16% from
others, and 40% produced in the U.S. (95). The cost of imported oil and gas at $60 per barrel
and $7 per 1,000 ft3 in 2007 is about $300 billion per year. [Mention “Cap & Trade”]
U.S. Energy (2006)? 85% from Hydrocarbons!
Petition Project
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
February 18, 2009
John M. Broder
E.P.A. Expected to Regulate
Carbon Dioxide
The decision, which most likely would
play out in stages over a period of
months, would have a profound impact
on transportation, manufacturing costs
and how utilities generate power.
— quote from the NYT
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Moral Issues
Al
Gore
“I believe it is
appropriate to
have an overrepresentation
of factual
presentations
on how
dangerous it is.”
76
C. Monckton
Gore
Judge
Sea level up 20 ft
Only after millennia
Pacific atolls evacuated
No evidence for it
Ocean conveyor to stop
To slow, not stop
CO2 drove temperature
Other way round
Kilimanjaro melting
By natural causes
Lake Chad drying up
Not global warming
Katrina anthropogenic
No proven link
Polar bears drowning
Storm killed 4 bears
77
Coral reefs bleaching
Many causes
A Skeptic’s Guide to An Inconvenient Truth
(quoted/arranged from)
Marlo Lewis
AIT is
One Sided
Misleading
Exaggerated
Speculative
and…
WRONG
Furthermore, it…
Never acknowledges the indispensable role of fossil fuels in ending
serfdom and slavery, alleviating hunger and poverty, extending
human life spans, and democratizing consumer goods, literacy,
leisure, and personal mobility.
Marlo Lewis is a Senior Fellow in Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
From the Inquisition (Galileo) to
Lysenkoism through the 3rd Reich
to Hansen
James Hansen’s National Press club speech (23 June 2008)
— The heads of major fossil-fuel companies who spread
disinformation about global warming should be
"tried for high crimes against humanity and nature”
[i]n 1975 Yale University published a report on freedom of expression (PDF*) which was adopted as formal university policy and is often referred to as a
authoritative statement in support of freedom of expression. Here is an excerpt of some of its eloquent and
forceful prose (emphases added):
The primary function of a university is to discover and disseminate knowledge by means of research and teaching.
To fulfill this function a free interchange of ideas is necessary
not only within its walls but with the world beyond as well.
It follows that the university must do everything possible to ensure within it the fullest degree of intellectual freedom.
The history of intellectual growth and discovery clearly demonstrates the need for unfettered freedom, the right to think the unthinkable, discuss the
unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable. To curtail free expression strikes twice at intellectual freedom, for whoever deprives another of
the right to state unpopular views necessarily also deprives others of the right to listen to those views.
On the obligations of academics (and I would argue that the responsibility extends to scientists at research institutions that are not universities, such as
government labs), the report states:
We value freedom of expression precisely because it provides a forum for the new, the provocative, the disturbing, and the unorthodox.
Free speech is a barrier to the tyranny of
authoritarian or even majority opinion
as to the rightness or wrongness of particular
doctrines or thoughts.
Yale University statement regarding
Freedom of Thought & Expression
(1975)
Roger Pielke, Jr. (U. Colorado,Boulder
Posted on July 22, 2008 07:30 AM
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_politics/001482the_swindle_ruling_.html
* http://www.yale.edu/yale300/collectiblesandpublications/specialdocuments/Freedom_Expression/freedom1975.pdf
Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate:
Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate
Change [NIPCC]
— Science and Environmental Policy Project, Edited
by S. Fred Singer
167 scientific references and a list of 41 books
http://heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/pdf/22835.pdf
“Our concern about the environment, going back some 40
years, has taught us important lessons. It is one thing to impose
drastic measures and harsh economic penalties when an
environmental problem is clear-cut and severe. It is foolish to
do so when the problem is largely hypothetical and not
substantiated by observations. As NIPCC shows by offering an
independent, non-governmental ‘second opinion’ on the ‘global
warming’ issue, we do not currently have any convincing
evidence or observations of significant climate change from
other than natural causes.” [my stress]
Frederick Seitz
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University
Past President, National Academy of Sciences
Past President, American Physical Society
Chairman, Science and Environmental Policy Project
Los Angeles Times,
Chicago Tribune,
Washington Times,
Washington Post, and
the New York Times
— Monday, 30Mar2009
Summary
• Introduction to some issues about
Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmism
• Temperature
• Some Major Climate Players affecting
Temperatures
• The Sun
• Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and Temperature
• Models
• Polar Bears threatened?
• Intensification of Climate Catastrophes?
• Methodological Errors
• Possible Consequences for Science
• Possible Economic Consequences
• Moral Issues
FALLING
LACKING
THRIVING
RAMPANT
DISASTEROUS
SEVERE
URGENT
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Is
NOT
“Pollution”
To RESTRICT Carbon Dioxide —
(1) Will have an utterly NEGLIGIBLE effect on Climate
(2) Will DESTROY Human Lives
Emotion vs Reason
We are free to not think about any issue.
We are not free to escape the
consequences resulting from not thinking.
— L.I. Gould 20 Oct. 2007
References
(small sample)
The Science & Public Policy Institute
(SPPI) has a large number of scientific
papers, as well as a listing of other
sites, videos, and books devoted to a
critical examination of AGWA claims:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
Additional information is on:
http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/lgould
Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats,
Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
… is a lesson in courage
bequeathed by those
who came before…
A. Horn
Lives of great men all remind us
We can make our lives sublime,
And, departing, leave behind us
Footprints on the sands of time;
[including the life-supporting
“carbon footprints”]
— Longfellow, op cit
Quic kTime™ and a
TIFF (Unc ompres sed) dec ompres sor
are needed to see this pic ture.
— Thanks for your attention. —
END NOTES
MWP appears …
oC
From IPCC (1990)
Little Ice Age
Mediaeval warm period
1000
1300
1600
1900
94
after C. Monckton
… MWP disappears!
From IPCC (2001)
95
after C. Monckton
“Hockey Stick”
AIT: Those global warming skeptics…launched a fierce attack against another measurement of the
1,000-year correlation between CO2 and temperature known as “the hockey stick,” a graphic image
representing the research of climate scientist Michael Mann and his colleagues [Raymond Bradley
and Malcolm Hughes]. But in fact, scientists have confirmed the same basic conclusions in multiple
ways—with Thompson’s ice core record as one of the most definitive. (65)
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Millennial Northern Hemisphere (NH) temperature reconstruction (blue – tree rings, corals, ice cores, and historical records) and instrumental data (red)
from AD 1000 to 1999. Smoother version of NH series (black), and two standard error limits (gray shaded) are shown
The claim of last sentence in AIT is FALSE — see McIntyre & McKitrick; see Wegman report; see Monckton; see Marlo Lewis critique of the entire
Gore film/book; and see McKitrick, “What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About?”
“The Science of Climate Change” by Dr. Michael Mann — Bruce Museum: September 21, 2008
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Net Incoming Solar Radiation (NISR) = 342 W/m2 - 105 W/m2 = 237 W/m2
The prevailing
“Authorities”
“In my opinion the Nobel prize
in global warming and such has
already been given last year by
Gore; who got the Nobel Prize
for global warming and what
not. And I hate to say
something bad about Norway,
but in this case I sharply [his
stress, based on his study of the
AGW claims] disagree with
that prize.”
— Ivar Giaever
(Nobel Laureate, Physics)
58th Meeting of Nobel Laureates
Panel Discussion on "Climate Changes
and Energy Challenges”
(Lindau; 1 July 2008)
Precautionary Principle
Seat Belts versus Tanks
and Other Examples
Past Disasters Caused
by Mass Hysteria:
(1)
(2)
DDT and
Eugenics!
Global annual
malaria deaths
Before the DDT ban:
50,000
After the DDT ban: 1,000,000
All excess deaths:
40,000,000
101
C. Monckton
ad hominem
August 2007
Errors of Method deflect attention from the science — An augmentation:: Robert M. Carter, “Public Misperceptions of Human-Caused Climate
Change: The Role of the Media”’ given in Testimony before the Committee on Environment and Public works (December 6, 2006); section titled “Playing the man and not the ball” illuminates techniques that have been used to
convince the public of AGWA. Carter notes that: .
1.
“The science is settled”; or, there is a “consensus” on the issue.
… science is about facts, experiments and testing hypotheses, notconsensus; and science is never “settled”. [Indeed,
Einstein’s relativity theories are still being tested; e.g., “Lorentz invariance”]
He is paid by the fossil fuel industry, and is merely repeating their desired story. [e.g., several anti-AGWA
scientists had their credibility challenged in accusations by the Chairwoman of Senate Environment & Public Works Committee at
hearing on 25 February 2009]
Science discussions are determined on their merits, by using tests against empirical or experimental data. Who paid
for the data to be gathered and assessed is simply irrelevant.
2.
3.
She works for a left wing/right wing think tank, so her work is tainted
Think tanks serve an invaluable function in our society. On all sides of politics they are the source of much excellent
policy analysis. They provide extended discussion and commentary on matters of public interest, and have made
many fine contributions towards balancing the public debate on climate change.
4.
He is just a climate sceptic, a contrarian, a denialist.
… all good scientists are skeptics: that is their professional job. To not be a skeptic of the hypothesis that you are
testing is the rudest of scientific errors, for it means that you are committed to a particular outcome: that’s
faith, not science.
5.
“Six Nobel Prize winners, and seven members of the National Academy of Sciences say ……”.
Argument from authority is the antithesis of the scientific method.
6.
The “precautionary principle” says that we should limit human carbon dioxide emissions because of the risk that the emissions will
cause dangerous warming. Thus the science argument should be subservient to the risk argument
In order to take precautions, it is necessary to understand what one is taking them against. But at the moment global
average temperature is flat-lining, and empirical predictions are for cooling. As Dick Lindzen recently pointed out in
an article in the U.K. Telegraph: “After all, like hurricane frequency or the price of oil, global mean temperature is
as likely to go down as up”.
I am a physics teacher. Or, at least I used to be. My subject is still called physics.
My pupils will sit an exam and earn a GCSE in physics, but that exam doesn’t
cover anything I recognize as physics.
Over the past year the UK Department for Education and the AQA board
changed the subject. They took the physics out of physics and replaced it
with… something else, something nebulous and ill defined.
I worry about this change. I worry about my pupils, I worry about the
state of science education in this country, and I worry about the future physics
teachers — if there will be any.
……………
The result is a fiasco that will destroy physics in England.
The thing that attracts pupils to physics is its precision. Here, at last, is a
discipline that gives real answers that apply to the physical world. But that
precision is now gone.
Calculations — the very soul of physics — are absent from
the new GCSE. Physics is a subject unpolluted by a torrent of malleable words,
but …now everything must be described in words.
In this course,
pupils debate topics like global warming and nuclear power.
Debate drives science, but pupils do not learn meaningful information about the
topics they debate. Scientific argument is based on quantifiable evidence. The
person with the better evidence, not the better rhetoric or talking points, wins. But
my pupils now discuss the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power plants,
without any real understanding of how they work or what radiation is.
I want to teach my subject, to pass on my love of physics to those few who would
appreciate it. But I can’t. There is nothing to love in the new course. I see no
reason that anyone taking this new GCSE would want to pursue the subject.
This is the death of physics.
Wellington Grey --- Physics teacher
http://www.WellingtonGrey.net/
A. Horn
A. Horn
Is the IPCC
honest?
107
C. Monckton
BEFORE (#1)
“None of the studies cited above
has shown clear evidence that we
can attribute the observed
[climate] changes to the specific
cause of increases in greenhouse
gases.”
IPCC (1995)
108
Monckton
C. Monckton
BEFORE (#5)
“When will an anthropogenic
effect on climate be identified? It is
not surprising that the best answer
to this question is, ‘We do not
know.’
IPCC (1995)
109
C. Monckton
AFTER:
“The body of … evidence
now points to a discernible
human influence on global
climate.”
IPCC (1995) rewrite
110
C. Monckton
“Unless we
announce
disasters,
no one will
listen.”
Quic kTime™ and a
TIFF (Unc ompres sed) dec ompres sor
are needed to see this pic ture.
Sir John Houghton
IPCC (1988) Chair for scientific assessment
“We need very large growth in renewable
energy sources — … biomass …”
Biofuels
disaster
“the poor people in the world, who stand to be very
disadvantaged by things like climate change”
All quotes, except the first, are from Physics Today; September 2007, page 30
policy
111
Cf., Monckton
IPCC bars scientists
who reject alarmism
“The IPCC
did not tell
the truth.”
Paul Reiter
112
C. Monckton
To “announce disasters”
unjustly is a moral issue
Al Gore says, “I believe this is a moral
issue.” So it is. To announce disasters
or scary scenarios; to over-represent
factual presentations in place of
adherence to the scientific truth – that
is a moral issue.
— Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
113
Censorship Issues
• Nature editorial (12 July 2001)
— Mentions the “mounting evidence that the consumption of fossil fuels is producing emissions that change
the make-up of the atmosphere and may endanger the future of the planet. … industry groups in question … have
championed specious scientific findings and worked to establish a bogus scientific debate… to confuse and delude the
public on global warming.”
• Under the Veneer of legitimacy “Consensus”
–— American Statistical Association [Wegman spelled out what happened]
–— American Meteorological Society [11,000 member; Joe d’Aleo was on Council; Pielke attacked them]
–— American Physical Society [over 30,000 members; as I mention in my Open Letter -- Spring 2008 NES APS Newsletter
I am, therefore, particularly amazed and distressed to find the APS Council taking the stand (in their November 2007 meeting) that “The evidence is
incontrovertible. Global warming is occurring” and then going on to urge “governments, universities, national laboratories and its [APS] membership to
support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.” (APS NEWS, Jan. 2008, Vol. 17, No. 1; front page)