The Climate Debate Twenty Years Later 

Posted: March 13, 2019 by oldbrew in climate, Critique
Tags: , ,

Still going round in circles it seems: long on assertions but short on credible evidence of the claimed alarming human effects.

“Better climate knowledge about natural versus anthropogenic forcing seems to be a decade away”, quotes Master Resource.

That was the major takeaway from a major 1999 climate conference in Houston, Texas , as noted by Martin Cassidy of the Houston Geological Society, who authored a conference summary, “Global Climate Change: Panel Agrees: ‘In 10 Years We Will Know’.”

In fact, one of the conference participants, Gerald North, climatologist at Texas A&M, repeated this a decade after this conference. In his words:

‘In another decade of research we will have squared away a lot of our uncertainties about forced climate change. As this approaches we can be thinking about what to do if the warming does indeed appear to be caused by humans and to what extent things are changing as result.’ (North to Seldon B. Graham, Jr. January 6, 2010)

Now for Cassidy’s 1,000-word writeup. As you read this, ask yourself: what is really that different today, 20 years later, science-wise?

On Friday, September 25, 1999, a distinguished panel of eight scientists, all active in research on global climate change, met at the Houston Club under the sponsorship of The Houston Forum to present a reasoned scientific discussion about global climate change. The half-day panel discussion was a welcome relief from the strident cries of special pleaders on either side of the question of global warming.

Ed Powell, Houston Forum leader, turned the meeting over to Dr. David R. Legates to moderate. He stated that the objective of the meeting was to present what is known and the limits of accuracy of the data that we have. During the morning session, four general topics were discussed:

Continued here.

  1. oldbrew says:

    One commenter wrote:

    What is new is that –
    1 the hot spot in the tropical mid troposphere,the signature of CO2 induced global warming theory has failed to appear.
    2 there is no acceleration in sea level or CO2 signal in the sea level data.
    3 Nokolov and Zeller using NASA data have shown that the temperature of rocky planets similar to our own is described by the incoming solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere and the pressure of the atmosphere at the surface. .CO2 is irrelevant
    4 Christy and co, have shown that when you allow for volcanism and ENSO there is no CO2 signal in any of the 13 data sets that they studied.
    5 Svensmark has shown that GCR theory can explain the temperature of the earth better than CO2
    6 The polar bears are thriving
    7 There is no increase in hurricane intensity or energy
    8 There is no increase in wild fires
    9 The earth is greening due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere and that outweighs any negative effect CO2 might have.
    10 The IPCC models are running hot by at least a factor of 2
    11 If you add all this up the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is net beneficial to humanity
    12 Lewis and Curry and others indicate that climate sensitivity is not 3.3 as used in the IPCC models but around 1 which means that the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) is negative, therefore in economic and political terms we should be subsidizing the production of CO2.

    Who would have thought it!!!!!!

  2. cognog2 says:

    In 20 years time the talk will be about the “Great Climate Scam”. I have 97% confidence in this prediction as I shall be dead by then.

  3. oldbrew says:

    As the presumably well-meaning, but nevertheless deluded, useful idiots (sorry kids) of the climate propaganda machine make a spectacle of themselves today…

    An open letter to #ClimateStrike participants
    Guest Blogger / 1 hour ago March 15, 2019
    – – –
    Time for some groupthink, children…

    Date: 15/03/19 Andrew Montford and John Shade, Global Warming Policy Foundation

    GWPF report finds eco-activism is being given a free rein in many UK schools. In every case of concern, the slant is on scares, on raising fears, followed by the promotion of detailed guidance on how pupils should live, as well as on what they should think.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s