On Feb. 2, 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) again uttered its mantra of catastrophe about man-made global warming.
After weeks of noisy propaganda, a 21-page “Summary for Policymakers” of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007, was presented in grandiose style in Paris to a crowd of politicians and media.
The event induced a TSUNAMI of HYSTERIA that ran around the world.
This was probably the main aim of this clearly POLITICAL paper, prepared by governmental and United Nations bureaucrats, and published more than three months before the IPCC’s 1,600-page scientific report
This is a strange and unusual method of operation for a scientific report, and even stranger is the frankness of the IPCC’s words about the delay, disclosing its LACK of scientific INTEGRITY and INDEPENDENCE.
It is exactly the same modus ope- randi demonstrated in the three former IPCC reports of 1990, 1995, and 2001: First the politics, then the science.
Zbigniew Jaworowski is a multidisciplinary scientist, now a senior advisor at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw. In the winter of 1957-58, he measured the concentration of CO2 in the atmospheric air at Spitsbergen. From 1972 to 1991, he investigated the history of the pollution of the global atmosphere, measuring the dust preserved in 17 gla- ciers: in the Tatra Mountains in Poland, in the Arctic, Antarctic, Alaska, Norway, the Alps, the Himalayas, the Ruwenzori Mountains in Uganda, and the Peruvian Andes. He has published many papers on climate, most of them concerning the CO2 measurements in ice cores. Two of his papers on climate appear on the website of 21st Century Science & Technology magazine, www.21stcenturysciencetech.com.
The IPCC is stuffed with money, and in agreement with the UN politics, which are dominated by greens and misanthropic fanaticism.
The President of the United States devoted nearly $29 billion to climate research, leading the world with its unparalleled financial commitment. This was about $5 billion per year, more than twice the amount spent on the Apollo Program ($2.3 billion per year), which in 1969 put man on the Moon.
The problem we are faced with is that the meteorological establishment and the global warming lobby research bodies which receive large funding are now apparently so corrupted by the largesse they receive that the scientists in them have sold their integrity.
The question arises: Were the decisions concerning this enormous funding for global warming research taken out of genuine concern that the climate is allegedly changing as a result of CO2 industrial emissions,
or do some other undis- closed ideas stand behind this money, IPCC activity, Kyoto, and all the gruesome catastrophic propaganda the world is now exposed to?
The concern at the top about “climate change” is not genu- ine, and there are hidden motives behind the global warming hysteria. The Four Basic IPCC Lies But let us switch back to the IPCC 2007 report. The four basic statements in the “Summary for Policymakers” are:
1. Carbon dioxide, the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas, increased markedly as a result of human ac- tivities, and its atmospheric concentration of 379 ppmv (parts per million, by volume) in 2005 by far exceeded the natural range of 180 to 300 ppmv over the last 650,000 years.
12. Since 1750, human activities warmed the climate.
3. The warmth of the last half-century is unusual, is the highest in at least the past 1,300 years, and is “very likely”caused by increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gas con- centrations;
4. Predictions are made that anthropogenic warming will continue for centuries, and between 2090 and 2099 the global average surface temperature will increase 1.1°C to 6.4°C.
Various scare stories of global catastrophes are prophesied to occur if man-made emissions are not curbed by drastic politi- cal decisions. The obvious beneficial effects of warming for man and all the biosphere are downplayed.
Except for CO2, all these points are garlanded with quali-fications such as “likely,” “very likely,” “extremely likely,” “with very high confidence,” and “unequivocal.”
In fact, to the contrary, all these points are INcorrect.
The Truth About Ice Cores
Because carbon dioxide ice core records are regarded as a foundation of the man-made global warming hypothesis, let us dwell on them for a while.
The basic assumption behind the CO2 glaciology is a tacit view that air inclusions in ice are a closed system, which permanently preserves the original chemical and isotopic composition of gas, and thus that the inclusions are a suitable matrix for reliable reconstruction of the pre-industrial and ancient atmosphere.
This assumption is in conflict with ample evidence from numerous earlier CO2 studies, indicating the opposite.
Proxy determinations of the atmospheric CO2 level by analysis of ice cores, reported since 1985, have been generally lower than the levels measured recently in the atmosphere. But, before 1985, the ice cores were showing values much higher than the current atmospheric concentrations.
These recent proxy ice core values re- mained low during the entire past 650,000 years – even during the six former interglacial warm periods, when the global temperature was as much as 5°C warmer than in our current interglacial!
This means that either atmospheric CO2 levels have no discernible influence on climate (which is true), or that the proxy ice core reconstructions of the chemical composition of the ancient atmosphere are false (which is also true).
It was NEVER experimentally demonstrated that ice core records RELIABLY REPRESENT the original atmospheric composi- tion.
The HOCKEY STICK CURVES
On the basis of ASSUMPTION PILED UPON ASSUMPTION, several versions of CO2 “hockey stick curves” were compiled, by combining the DISTORTED proxy ice core data and the recent direct atmospheric CO2 measurements.
The authors of such studies claimed that their curves represent the atmospheric CO2 levels during the past 300 years or the past 10,000 years or even the past 400,000 years. They all show low pre-industrial CO2 concentrations, ranging from about 180 to 280 ppmv during the past 400,000 years, and soaring up to about 370 ppmv at the end of the 20th Century. These so-called hockey stick curves were published countless times as a proof of the anthropogenic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. They were created by illegitimately MIXING the false proxy ice core data with direct measurements in the atmosphere.
However, the worst manipulation was the arbitrary changing of the age of the gas trapped in the upper part of the core, where the pressure changes were less drastic than in the deeper parts. In this part of the core, taken from Siple, Antarctica, the ice was deposited in the year 1890, and the CO2 concentration in it was 328 ppmv and not the 290 ppmv needed to prove the man-made warming hypothesis.
The CO2 ‘Hockey Stick’ Curve
The same CO2 concentration of 328 ppmv was measured in the air collected directly from the atmosphere at the Mauna Loa volcano, Hawaii, 83 years later in 1973 (Boden et al. 1990).
So, it was shockingly clear that the pre- industrial level of CO2 was the SAME as in the second half of the 20th Century.
To solve this “problem,” these researchers simply made an ad hoc assumption: The age of the gas recovered from 1 to 10 grams of ice was arbitrarily decreed to be exactly 83 years younger than the ice in which it was trapped!
This was not supported by any experimental evidence, but only by assumptions which were in conflict with the facts. The “corrected” proxy ice data were then smoothly aligned with the direct atmospheric measurements from Mauna Loa.
Thus, FALIFIED CO2 “hockey stick curves” were presented in ALL the IPCC reports. These hockey sticks were credulously accepted by almost everyone, together with other information on greenhouse gases determined in the ice cores, which were plagued by IMPROPER MANIPULATION of data, an ARBITRARY REJECTION of HIGH readings from old ice, and an ARBITRARY rejection of the LOW readings from the young ice, simply because they DID NOT FIT the PRECONCEIVED idea of man-made global warming.
The Near Future
Average Northern Hemisphere Temperature
During the past 2 million years,
there have been some 20 Ice Ages, each
lasting about 100,000 years, inter-
spersed with warm interglacials, the du-
ration of which was only about 10,000
years. The last Ice Age came to its end
about 10,500 years ago; thus, our pres-
ent interglacial seems to be a bit longer
than average. The new Ice Age looms in
waiting, and whether it comes in de-
cades, centuries, or even a millennium,
is a matter of speculation. It seems that
its inescapable advent will be induced
by natural cosmic factors rather than by
The hypothesis, in vogue in the 1970s, stating that emis-
sions of industrial dust will soon induce
the new Ice Age, seem now to be a conceited anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into discredit the science of that time.
The same fate awaits the present CO2 folly.
Is there an apocalyptic warming crisis, or not? “We’re always being told that we are reaching a point of no return – that, for instance, the melting of the Arctic ice pack is the beginning of the apocalypse,” Curry says.
“BUT this melting, which started decades ago, is NOT leading to catastrophe.”
Polar bears themselves adapt and move elsewhere and have never been more numerous; they’re less threatened by the melting, she says, than by urbanization and economic development in the polar region.
Over the last year or so, moreover, the planet has started cooling, though “no one knows whether it will last or not, or whether it will put all the global-warming hypotheses in question.”
The truly dramatic rupture of the ice pack would come NOT from global-warming-induced melting BUT from “volcanic eruptions in the Antarctic region that would break up the ice, and these CANNOT be PREDICTED.”
Climatologists don’t talk about such eruptions because their theoretical MODELS CAN’T ACCOUNT for the UNpredictable.