Deconstructing ClimateGate's Smoking-Gun Email
He can protest until the methane-generating cows come home, but the following implication of Trenberth’s trembling response is inescapable: “Even though we’ve relied on them all along to build our case, we suddenly can’t rely on temperature measurements to prove or disprove the existence of global warming. Our models nonetheless simply have to be right.” His backup argument if the temps are indeed correct -- which would mean that the model generating “the CERES data” and other similar simulations will have been proven to be flawed -- would be, “Well, even if the models are wrong, we still have proof in melting Arctic sea ice, rising sea levels, etc.”
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose work Trenberth cites in a recent paper to support his belief that “global warming is unequivocally happening,” doesn’t name any other factors beyond temperature, ice, and sea levels in the pull quote of its “Summary for Policymakers”: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”
So unless Trenberth has something meaningful in the “lot of other indicators” he casually cites in his response to his email’s release, he and his brethren are in a heap of trouble. That’s because by his own logic, temperature measurements must be rejected as credible evidence. Further, his presumptive, supposedly settled-science arguments about Arctic sea ice and rising sea levels melt upon only a cursory review.
It isn’t totally obvious that the overall sea ice is on a serious long-term melting trend. In fact, from what is “the lowest coverage ever recorded in the summer of 2007,” “the [Arctic] ice coverage rebound[ed] back to more near normal coverage” over the next winter. There is also a considerable debate as to whether “Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away,” or whether it “may not be losing ice as fast as once thought.”
It’s even less clear that sea levels are meaningfully rising; the preponderance of the evidence is that they are not. In fact, Nils-Axel Mörner, the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University in Sweden, who is described as “one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world,” asserts that the rising sea levels claim is “the greatest lie ever told.”
Well, there’s a lot of competition for that title, but this nifty little chart from Mörner shows that fears of catastrophic rises in one controversial area hold very little water:
If you look at 2050, 41 long years from now, you’ll see that Mörner predicts a mean possible rise of about 0.05 meters, or just under two inches. That is not much more than a millimeter per year.
The alarmists are kidding, right?
Wrong. The purveyors of global warming baloney, or “globaloney” as yours truly and many others have been calling their belief system for years, are hell bent on totally reconfiguring the world’s industrial and commercial structure through cap and trade, and completely transforming its political order through transnational agreements such as the one under consideration next month in Copenhagen. They are bound and determined to have a world-run body assume an unprecedented level of control over the everyday actions of absolutely everyone, everywhere on the globe.
Before you do that, guys and gals, you’re going to have to present compelling evidence. Level, slightly declining, and/or not-credible temperature readings; faulty computer models; ice caps that may or may not be melting; and sea levels that may or may not be rising by less than the thickness of a dime annually won’t cut it. Kevin Trenberth and the globaloney in-crowd seem to have known all of this for quite some time. That is the unforgivable element of the scandal.