Nexus - 0906 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

multi- century variations in the Moon's influence correspond with | UN IPCC Scientific Working Group Lead Authors the variations in the estimated temperature record. This effect, if Many of the Working Group I SPM lead authors are prominent confirmed, is also sufficient to explain the entire rise in the 140- activists for the theory of human interference, as opposed to the year temperature record, as well as prior variations found in proxy theory of integrated climate variation. records. The press often says the UN IPCC reports are produced by hun- ¢ Thirdly, there is a well-known (not recently discovered) dreds, if not thousands, of scientists. This may be true in some oscillation that the SPM chooses to ignore. The period of the vague sense of participation, and the actual TAR chapters do not Middle Ages was warm, quite possibly as warm as today. This exhibit as much glaring scientific bias as the WGI Summary for warm period was followed by several centuries of cold, called the Policymakers and the Technical Summary. Little Ice Age, which ended around 1850. The present warming On the other hand, only experts read the main reports. The UN may therefore be simply a recovery from the Little Ice Age, part | IPCC’'s voice to policymakers, press and the public regarding cli- of a multi-century natural oscillation, and some scientists have mate science is through the WGI SPM and the TS. These two argued for this. documents have precisely the same 20 lead authors, many of ¢ Fourthly, solar variation is now accepted as playing a signifi- whom are among the leading proponents of the theory of human cant part in at least one of the two periods of warming in the 140- interference with climate. year surface temperature record. (As SPM figure la shows, all of Here are the 20 lead authors listed by the UN IPCC (the names the lasting warming in the 140-year surface record occurred in __ in bold typeface stand out in particular as among the top rank of just two relatively brief periods—from 1910 to 1940, and from _ activist scientists for the theory of human interference with cli- 1980 to the present.) Some scientists argue that solar variation mate; most of them are frequently quoted in the American and can explain all of both warmings. British press): + Lastly, new models of the well- Coordinating lead authors — D. L. known Milankovitch orbital forcing Albritton (United States of America), predict that we should be in a L. G. Meira Filho (Brazil). warming period. Lead authors - U. Cubasch re SPM does not allow for these Natu ral variation iS a (Che De pai china). ui Ding powerful natural influences, with the . ina), D. J. Griggs nite exception of a small solar forcing, new way of understanding Kingdom), B. Hewitson (South a nor do the climate models them- climate, which the climate ans T. Ae USAy M selves. . saksen (Norway), T. Kar] , M. On page 10, the SPM says the fol- models mistakenly take McFarland (USA), V. P. Meleshko lowing: "Simulations of the to be unchanging. (Russia), J. F. B. Mitchell (UK), M. response to natural forcings alone (i.e., the response to variability in solar irradiance and volcanic erup- tions) do not explain the warming in the second half of the 20th century... However, they indicate that natural forcings may have con- (USA). Noguer (UK), B. S. Nyenzi (Tanzania), M. Oppenheimer (USA), J. E. Penner (USA), S. Pollonais (Trinidad and Tobago), T. Stocker (Switzerland), K. E. Trenberth tributed to the observed warming in the first half of the 20th It is no wonder, therefore, that the two summaries are so bla- century." tantly biased in favour of the theory of human interference with This paragraph makes clear that the only natural variations con- climate. They are written by scientists who have staked their rep- sidered by the computer models are solar radiation and major utations on that theory. This sort of bias need not be politically land-based volcanic activity. The massive forces and oscillators motivated. Most articles in the scientific literature are advocating listed above are simply ignored. some theory or other. The correct assessment of the science is that there are many Again, what is really going on in the science is a debate possible explanations for the observed surface temperature rise, between the Theory of Human Interference with Climate and the any one of which is sufficient to explain the entire increase. Theory of Integrated Climate Variation. oo Moreover, most of these contending explanations depend solely on a natural variation. About the Author: I call this emerging view of climate as a vast, ever-changing, | Dr David E. Wojick has a PhD in mathematical logic and dynamic process the Theory of Integrated Climate Variation. _ philosophy of science from the University of Pittsburgh, and This theory views changing climate as natural, something to be a Bachelor of Science in civil engineering from Carnegie prepared for—not something that can be altered or prevented. On = Mellon University. He has been on the faculty of Carnegie this view, the slight surface warming observed over the last | Mellon, where he helped found both the Department of century or so is also natural—not the result of human interference. | Engineering and Public Policy and the Department of Thus, the underlying scientific debate is between the Theory of | Philosophy. He has also served with the Office of Naval Human Interference with Climate and the Theory of Integrated Research and the Naval Research Laboratory. Climate Variation. David is presently a freelance writer, covering climate Natural variation is a new way of understanding climate, which change issues for Electricity Daily, as well as a policy ana- the climate models mistakenly take to be unchanging. If the lyst. A résumé and client list are available at theory of integrated climate variation is correct—and there is a _http://www.bydesign.com/powervision/ resume.html. For great and growing body of evidence for it—then this assumption further information and discussion, email David at of invariance by the climate modellers is simply a fundamental dwojick@climatechangedebate. org or visit his website at a beet Natural variation is a new way of understanding climate, which the climate models mistakenly take to be unchanging. About the Author: Dr David E. Wojick has a PhD in mathematical logic and philosophy of science from the University of Pittsburgh, and a Bachelor of Science in civil engineering from Carnegie Mellon University. He has been on the faculty of Carnegie Mellon, where he helped found both the Department of Engineering and Public Policy and the Department of Philosophy. He has also served with the Office of Naval Research and the Naval Research Laboratory. David is presently a freelance writer, covering climate change issues for Electricity Daily, as well as a policy ana- lyst. A résumé and client list are available at http:/www.bydesign.com/powervision/ resume.html. For further information and discussion, email David at dwojick@climatechangedebate.org or visit his website at http://www.climatechangedebate.org. error. 30 ¢ NEXUS www.nexusmagazine.com OCTOBER — NOVEMBER 2002